I see two competing ideas:
1. There is an ice wall, and folks have been there to confirm.
2. There is not an ice wall, and folks have been there to confirm.
As far as I can tell, there is no evidence forthcoming for #1, and Pete has confirmed to me that the picture is meant as a visual aid which he does not believe is literal.
There is evidence for #2, and pictures, videos can be found. There is a laboratory there for cosmic rays. Members of my own family have visited the continent.
I recognize that this evidence is rejected in the current conversation. But I also ask: what is the FE argument? Since no evidence has been presented in this thread yet, only the bare claim exists (#1). In my understanding, a claim must be twinned with evidence to form an argument.
In this fashion, a RE rebuttal which states “what is your argument” is a literal logical challenge quite appropriate and relevant in the present context. A FE rebuttal which states the same does not make sense, because the evidence for the claim has been presented (and rejected - but still presented).
I think it is possible to use logic to aid conflict in arguments, and in the context of the current discussion, it appears relevant for parsing competing ideas about whether the ice wall does or does not exist. Thoughts?