By Plenary Sessions: Enn Eesmaa

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, neutral, and procedural, intended for the presentation of a report to the executive commission. The discourse is logical and fact-based, including detailed dates and references to specific sections of the law. Emotional appeals are entirely absent, with the focus solely on conveying procedural decisions and the substance of the draft bill.

The style is formal, analytical, and constructive, expressing appreciation for the work of the presenters and the initiative group. The speaker uses rhetorical questions to initiate strategic discussions (EU allies) and gauge public opinion (referendum result). He relies primarily on logical and procedural arguments, citing the Finnish presidential election system as an example.

The rhetorical style is formal, factual, and procedural, typical of a committee presentation delivered to the plenary session. Logical argumentation is employed, referencing specific dates, sessions, and consulted individuals to demonstrate the thorough preparation of the draft legislation. The tone is neutral and consensus-based.

The style is formal, procedural, and reflective. A personal framework ("I hoped," "I am truly sorry") is employed to express disappointment regarding the failure of a procedural initiative. The argumentation is logical, emphasizing the necessity of dialogue in a situation where the topics are already known. One line is brief and designated as an apolitical linguistic observation.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, emphasizing the legitimacy of his actions as a representative of the people. The speaker uses a logical appeal to highlight the differences in awareness between Parliament and the public, and requests a comparative analysis.

The style is highly formal, factual, and procedural, focusing on the detailed description of the stages and dates of the legislative process. The tone is neutral and informative, appealing to logic, facts, and precision (in the interest of fairness and accuracy), rather than emotions.

The style of address is highly formal, businesslike, and procedural. The focus is on conveying facts and announcing committee decisions and deadlines, while strictly avoiding emotional or rhetorical devices. The purpose of the address is informative: to notify the Riigikogu Board of the committee's proposals.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and inquisitive, presenting a specific political query to the minister. Fact-based examples (the status of Iceland, the Global Peace Index) are used to introduce the topic. The tone is professional and information-seeking.

The style is formal and interrogative, presented within the framework of the Riigikogu session. The speaker appeals to the public, emphasizing the need to explain the policy to the people who have not delved into the coalition agreement. The tone is factual and focuses on listing important topics before posing a specific question regarding cooperation.

The speech is highly formal, objective, and procedural, fitting the role of a committee rapporteur. The emphasis is placed on logical argumentation, presenting detailed procedural steps, dates, and legal standpoints. The style is complex and technical, avoiding emotional or personal appeals.

The rhetorical style is direct and passionate, encompassing both praise for a colleague and sharp personal criticism aimed directly at the glass pavilion. Strong emotional language is employed ("it absolutely does not belong there"), and questions are raised that challenge the international importance of earlier decisions.

The style of address is formal and respectful ("Honored colleague"), yet substantively critical. The speaker consciously stresses the avoidance of an accusatory tone, concentrating on the logical formulation of questions concerning the obstacles. A rhetorical device is utilized, referring to a television viewer observing the session who would pose the identical question.

The speaker adopted an apologetic and informative tone, briefly explaining a technical or procedural error ("my fingers were nervous"). The style was very brief, personal, and focused on resolving the immediate discrepancy. Emotional or logical appeals were absent, as the comment was purely procedural.