By Plenary Sessions: Tanel Tein

The rhetorical style is formal, substantive, and structured, presenting the content of the draft bill as logical points ("four main directions of change"). The tone is optimistic and persuasive, emphasizing well-thought-out steps and positive outcomes regarding state revenues and security. The appeals are primarily logical and focused on political objectives.

The rhetorical style is formal, inquisitive, and cautious, making it suitable for a plenary discussion. The speaker employs several rhetorical questions to draw attention to procedural shortcomings and risks, for example, whether the level of engagement has been sufficient.

The style is formal and polite, incorporating praise for the minister's presentation ("it was a good presentation!"). The speaker employs a recurring question, noting that the topic has been raised "tens and tens of times," which highlights the persistence and the urgency of the issue. The metaphor of "being stuck behind a dam" is used to illustrate the stagnation.

The style is polite, formal, and inquisitive, beginning by thanking the chair of the session and the minister. The address is logical and focuses on problem-solving, presenting the adoption of AI as a practical approach to improving institutional efficiency. The tone is optimistic and exploratory, seeking confirmation regarding the soundness of the proposed direction.

The style is innovative, optimistic, and urgent, emphasizing the necessity of bold decisions that will advance Estonia over the next 20–30 years. Strong logical and data-driven arguments are employed to substantiate the economic viability of the investments (the prevention mechanism). The address is formal, but it also includes emotional appeals (e.g., the example of Iceland's football victory and the birth rate) as well as direct value judgments.

The rhetorical style is questioning and analytical, posing direct questions regarding potential cooperation and the necessity of the major project. It appeals to logic and economic arguments (efficiency, cost savings), rather than emotions.

The speaker's style is analytical and probing, presenting the presenter with logical questions that assess potential. The tone is formal and focuses on rational arguments, emphasizing the tax's impact on the economic signal and seeking better solutions. Emotional or personal appeals are absent.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and direct, posing specific questions to the Minister regarding costs and alternatives. The tone is logical and data-focused (building size, cost), employing the specific term "idle capacity cost."

The style is analytical and questioning, respectfully addressing the minister ("Dear Minister!"). The emphasis is on logical argumentation and the requirement to present specific economic calculations to assess the tax policy's impact on the state budget, briefly balancing the recognized health objective against fiscal considerations.

The tone is predominantly factual, analytical, and constructive, fulfilling the role of a rapporteur by providing comprehensive committee summaries. It utilizes logical arguments and numerical data (funding totals, percentages). It expresses personal conviction and optimism regarding the idea of attracting private funding, while also offering perspectives from outside the commission.

The style is analytical and solution-oriented, reflecting the speaker's background in private business and focusing on identifying problems and developing solutions. Logical arguments and a structured approach (five points) are employed, emphasizing the necessity of systematic, planned action. The tone is professional and constructive, though it also conveys concern regarding the inefficiency of the current system.

The rhetorical style is formal and questioning, addressing the minister respectfully ("Esteemed Minister!"). The speaker poses direct questions to gain clarity regarding the government's plans and the deficiencies of the existing system, all while maintaining a neutral and analytical tone.

The rhetorical style is highly formal and procedural, focusing on facts and official decisions. The speaker is direct, posing questions or making proposals without emotional charge, using neutral parliamentary language. The preferred approach involves presenting the question briefly and concretely, as well as introducing the substance of the draft decision.

The style is formal and questioning, addressing the prime minister directly with a constructive tone. Logical argumentation is used, relying on previous success in science funding, and a metaphor ("small locomotive") is employed to describe the national initiative.