I'm sorry. Nothing personal. But I get mightily sick of 'the other side' raising an issue and then objecting that an argument against ONE aspect of it is not an argument against ALL aspects of it.
Work with me here. TWO (at least) arguments are raised against the intercession of the saints. ONE is that they're supposedly dead. ANOTHER is that it makes no sense to ask for the prayers of another person since we all have direct access to our Lord.
The argument against the matter of their being dead or having died is ONE argument. The argument against whether it makes sense to ask for the intercession of anybody but Jesus is ANOTHER argument.
Now, IF the aim is to obfuscate, to confuse, or to avoid the appearance of having been refuted, then it makes rhetorical sense, but not 'sense' in the more important meaning of the word, to criticize the OTHER argument because it does not address the issues of the ONE argument.
But if the aim is to examine the issues with the use of reason, then to raise the issue of "I see dead people" when we're looking at "whether there's a good reason to ask for the intercession of anybody but Jesus" is in the theological world what demagoguery is in the political.
Are we about trying to think clearly and to approach the Truth, or are we about appearing to vanquish our opponents and sowing confusion?
I see dead people...
When the FIRST happens; the the SECOND is the result; don't you think?