By Months: Eerik-Niiles Kross

The speaker adopts a formal, analytical, and patient style, focusing primarily on logical and legal arguments rather than emotional appeals. They thoroughly explain the historical background and legal nuances of the draft bill, particularly during the question-and-answer session, striving to keep the debate free from partisan politics. The tone is serious, emphasizing the necessity of the change.

The tone of the communication is descriptive, conveying slight frustration or concern regarding the lack of control. The style is simple and straightforward, focusing on a specific operational issue without resorting to emotional or logical appeals.

The tone is formal and analytical, yet simultaneously emotionally charged, expressing regret and pain over the criticism of a friend. It employs metaphors (former political prisoners, furnishing an apartment) and historical comparisons, and stresses that diplomacy has failed, necessitating a counter-escalation ("the worse, the better").

The rhetorical style is analytical, fact-based, and serious, focusing initially on refuting common "misconceptions." The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and cites programmatic documents to demonstrate the radical nature of the ideology (e.g., "holy war," "Satanism"). The tone is formal, and the objective is to guide the Riigikogu toward a legal and secular assessment.

The rhetorical style is formal and insistent, balancing the emotional weight ("a very emotional topic, a very difficult topic") with strict, fact-based, and legal argumentation. Historical analogies (the March deportations, Ants Laaneots) are used to personalize and intensify the subject matter, aiming to provoke a strong reaction from the audience and underscore the gravity of the issue.