By Agendas: Luisa Rõivas

The rhetorical style is formal, urgent, and ambitious, emphasizing that spending on defense and technology are investments in the future. The speaker relies on logical and strategic arguments, while simultaneously leveraging the geopolitical threat (aggressive Russia) to justify political priorities. The tone is optimistic, calling on Estonia to take a leading role.

The tone is formal and respectful, addressing the rapporteur directly ("Esteemed Chairman! Dear Rapporteur!"). The style is analytical and question-oriented, focusing on logical arguments and the demand for policy measurability.

The style is formal, analytical, and inquisitive, addressing the Minister respectfully. The emphasis is placed on logical argumentation, focusing on clarifying the causes of the budget deficit and mitigating associated risks. The speaker employs clear and direct language, calling for a strategic long-term plan.

The rhetorical style is formal and question-driven, making it suitable for parliamentary debate during a minister's address ("Mr./Madam Speaker! Esteemed Minister!"). The tone is professional and logical, focusing on the details of policy implementation and strategic funding issues. Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed solely on rational analysis.

The speaker’s rhetorical style is personal, sentimental, and humorous, utilizing strong emotional appeals regarding Christmas and childhood. The formality level is low, and the speech contains both self-irony (referring to their singing as the only concert they give) and direct references to the low standards of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament).

The style is direct and confrontational, reacting to the claims and questions raised by previous speakers. The speaker uses personal appeal (her status as a mother of a large family) to socially legitimize her position, balancing this with a logical and legal argument (a reference to the constitution and the specifics of the healthcare system).

The style is predominantly formal and procedural, focusing on conveying facts and the timeline regarding the long-term processing of the draft bill. Personally, regret is expressed over the closure of the consulate, balancing the emotional stance with the pragmatic logic concerning the late discussion of the decision.

The rhetorical style is very formal, neutral, and fact-based. The speaker primarily focuses on presenting the procedural history and dates, employing a logical and detailed approach, without emotional or persuasive appeals. The tone is informative and anticipates the completion of the process.

The rhetorical style is formal and businesslike, focusing on procedural details and the committee’s decisions (consensus). When responding to questions, the tone is polite and defensive, redirecting the focus back to democratic principles and the competence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Instead of emotional arguments, logical reasoning is employed concerning the parliament’s right to issue statements.

The style is formal and polite, utilizing the addresses "Esteemed Chairman" and "Distinguished Presenter." The discourse is logical and analytical, focusing on facts (debt burden, deficit) and posing a specific political question concerning the balance target.

The rhetorical style is emotional and personal, drawing on personal experiences from visiting Ukraine and the persistent feeling that "something will always bother you." Historical references and strong judgments are employed (for instance, concerning Trump's comments), while posing questions that are deliberately naive or provocative to underscore the urgency of the subject matter.