Facilitated communication proponents (and by this I mean the people who actually peddle it and themselves as facilitators) can be sneaky--Biklen has made sure the talking points they use are well-laid out, that it's couched in rhetoric about inclusion, and that he and his facilitators come off as near-saints who believe that competency should be presumed rather than taught.
Competency is easy--if they can get parents and educators (who should know better) to assume that all nonverbal individuals understand the complexities of a particular language, then no learning curve is necessary--and competency presumed is competency demonstrated. It fits in with parents' most intense desires.
So facilitators will go to great lengths to play out "yes, but" exchanges (see comments). When the quality of one's argument is "yes, but did you watch the video?," there's nothing to discuss. Evidence hasn't been offered, at least not of the validity of what's on the video.
"...it's only the shoulder being touched."
An established relationship with a facilitator allows subtle cuing via the arm or shoulder, with the result being the letters being typed that the facilitator wants.
"...she's only holding the keyboard."
And shifting the keyboard, providing cues as to what key to press.
"she's only sitting beside the typist."
And moving her hands, fingers, or some other body movement to indicate the key.
We cue our students (as teachers) with our tone of voice, our eye gaze, our body movements. We do the same with our children, our pets (and even our spouses).
"Yes, but autistics can't read body language."
Not true. Autistics, like anyone familiar with another person, can read subtle cues that strangers might not catch.
So if a facilitator wants to argue the merits of FC, "yes, but did you watch the video" is not an argument with any evidence that FC works and is independent communication.