So it does; but the sophistry here is plain enough, although it is not always detected.  Great genius and force of character undoubtedly make their own career.  But because Walter Scott was dull at school, is a parent to see with joy that his son is a dunce?  Because Lord Chatham was of a towering conceit, must we infer that pompous vanity portends a comprehensive statesmanship that will fill the world with the splendor of its triumphs?  Because Sir Robert Walpole gambled and swore and boozed at Houghton, are we to suppose that gross sensuality and coarse contempt of human nature are the essential secrets of a power that defended liberty against tory intrigue and priestly politics?  Was it because Benjamin Franklin was not college-bred that he drew the lightning from heaven and tore the scepter from the tyrant?  Was it because Abraham Lincoln had little schooling that his great heart beat true to God and man, lifting him to free a race and die for his country?  Because men naturally great have done great service in the world without advantages, does it follow that lack of advantage is the secret of success?

     GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS:  The Public Duty of Educated
     Men, 1877

Reducing Proof to Absurdity.  A very good way of showing the unreliability of an opposing argument is to pretend to accept it as valid, then carrying it on to a logical conclusion, to show that its end proves entirely too much, or that it reduces the entire chain of reasoning to absurdity.  This is, in fact, called reductio ad absurdum.  At times the conclusion is so plainly going to be absurd that the refuter need not carry its successive steps into actual delivery.  In speaking to large groups of people nothing is better than this for use as an effective weapon.  It gives the hearers the feeling that they have assisted in the damaging demonstration.  It almost seems as though the speaker who uses it were merely using—­as he really is—­material kindly presented to him by his opponent.  So the two actually contribute in refuting the first speaker’s position.

Congress only can declare war; therefore, when one State is at war with a foreign nation, all must be at war.  The President and the Senate only can make peace; when peace is made for one State, therefore, it must be made for all.

Can anything be conceived more preposterous, than that any State should have power to nullify the proceedings of the general government respecting peace and war?  When war is declared by a law of Congress, can a single State nullify that law, and remain at peace?  And yet she may nullify that law as well as any other.  If the President and Senate make peace, may one State, nevertheless, continue the war?  And yet, if she can nullify a law, she may quite as well nullify a treaty.

     DANIEL WEBSTER:  The Constitution Not a Compact
     between Sovereign States, 1833