I agree with her. These are nonsense arguments.
> Science shouldn’t be a zero sum game.
(2. The “No Zero Sum” argument)
> new accelerator leads to excellent technical advances at all levels of the stack
5. It is not a waste of money
11. It may lead to spin-offs.
12. A big particle collider would benefit many tech industries and scientific networks.
Any argument that sidesteps that is nonsense. If goal of investing in fundamental physics is not R&D it's just a side effect as I assume.
If I read your argument correctly it's "We can't give argument that this is the best way spend money if you want to solve these problems, but it will generate other side benefits that may help indirectly". It's honest argument if put that way.
As for the argument that cosmology or astronomy are more promising ways of yielding new insights, that's not something she ever bothers to discuss in detail. There's no articles about how the extremely noisy and uncertain constrains from astronomy are more worth to gamble on that than the much cleaner direct detections from accelerators.
And there's certainly no arguments about how we should stop giving so much money to the exoplanet researchers and their instruments instead of making satellites to measure the cosmic radio background. (There's not even a little post about how SpaceX will hamper radio astronomy by making sure there's no radio quiet place left on earth).
They have not given a good answer why particle accelerators they are asking for would give any answers at 100 TeV.
It's just biggest they can hope to get.