Of all eloquence a nickname is the most concise; of all arguments the most unanswerable.

Hazlitt points to the peculiar rhetorical power of the nickname: a single, vivid label can compress a whole judgment into a word or two, making it feel like “eloquence” in miniature. Yet that same compression can function as a kind of shortcut in argument—by branding a person or position, it can pre-empt discussion rather than advance it. Calling nicknames “unanswerable” suggests how hard they are to refute: they stick in memory, spread easily, and often rely on insinuation or caricature rather than claims that can be tested. The remark is both an observation about language’s efficiency and a warning about how public opinion can be shaped by verbal tags.