In the Crito, do the Laws answer Crito’s arguments, or just outtalk him?

My nephew is reading the Crito for school, and he asked me a question I could not answer cleanly.

Crito gives Socrates practical reasons to escape: what people will say about his friends, his duty to his children, the charge that staying is a kind of self-betrayal. Socrates replies by imagining the Laws of Athens speaking to him. They say they gave him birth, nurture and education; that he was free to leave Athens with his goods at any time and did not; that by staying seventy years he agreed to abide by them; and that escaping now would be an attempt to destroy them.

My nephew's point: Crito never answers back. The Laws make a long speech, and then Socrates says their words are humming in his ears so that he cannot hear anything else. Is that a philosophical argument, or a rhetorical victory that simply silences the other side?

And if we take the argument seriously, is "you could have left and didn't" a real form of consent? It has had a long life since, in Locke's "tacit consent" among other places.