Undeniable exorcisms

Fred Butler ‏But could they deny it? The Pharisees didn't believe Jesus miracles, but they couldn't deny them.

That's very revealing. Fred's usual schtick is amputees. But what kind of miracle is Fred referring to in this instance? Presumbly, he's alluding to this incident:

22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons” (Mt 12:22-24).

The Pharisees don't deny it. They can't deny it. So they try to discredit the miracle by reassigning the cause. Instead of attributing the miracle to divine agency, they attribute the miracle to Satanic agency. 

But notice the kind of miracle which this account narrates. It's not Jesus healing amputees, but Jesus casting out demons. 

Is it Fred's position that exorcism is an undeniable miracle? A "NT quality miracle?" That's what his appeal to Mt 12:22:24 commits him to. 

But by that logic, if some modern-day Christians perform successful exorcisms, then that would meet Fred's criterion. That would prove continuationism and disprove cessationism.