By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Tali

The style is confident and occasionally confrontational, leveling accusations against the opposition for inciting "class hatred" and demonstrating mathematical incompetence. The text utilizes both emotional appeals (culture as the last line of defense) and concrete figures and statistics (over 1800 euros net annually, 5% of GDP allocated to defense spending). While the general tone is optimistic concerning the Estonian standard of living, it simultaneously stresses the urgent need for action given the security threats.

The style is formal, substantive, and procedural, characteristic of a commission representative addressing the plenary session. The argumentation is purely logical, focusing on facts, dates, and consensual decisions. Emotional or personal appeals are not employed, emphasizing instead thorough preparation and the achievement of clarity.

The rhetorical style is urgent, serious, and motivating, emphasizing the need for immediate action stemming from the current security situation ("every day is immensely important"). The speaker employs logical arguments to justify the necessity of amending the law, while also adding emotional emphasis regarding the unpredictability of crisis and war. The style is formal and centers on the speed of the proceedings and the objective that every individual understands their role during a crisis.

The rhetorical style is formal ("Honorable Chairman! Excellent Presenter!"), but it remains direct and question-focused. It employs hypothetical but pointed scenarios (like a week without internet) to test and demand practical preparedness. The tone is demanding, focusing on logical accountability, and directly asks whether the necessary actions have been rehearsed or practiced.

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, neutral, and informative, typical of a committee rapporteur addressing the plenary. The speaker employs logical appeals, presenting a detailed overview of the committee session, the participants, and the procedural decisions. Emotional or personal assessments are entirely absent; the emphasis is placed strictly on procedural accuracy.

The speech is formal and respectful, addressing the audience as "Honored Chairman" and "Dear colleagues." The tone is confident and persuasive, using strong superlatives to emphasize the quality of the presented draft bill. The style is rather declarative and focuses on communicating the action taken.