The idea of quantum entanglement can be argued to be an absurdity, or a very logical consequence of reality
I don't know what this means. I mean, quantum theory is a bit crazy in the sense that the predictions and consequences of it don't conform to what we experience in our day to day lives. Even Einstein called Quantum Entanglement "spooky action at a distance."
But the results of the experiments are clear and have practical uses. Quantum computing is in its infancy but it has been used to generate real results. That means that it doesn't matter whether you think entanglement is intuitive or nonsense. Reality and truth are determined through observation and experiment, they are objective and independent of your opinions or feelings.
Next, after accepting that reality may be outside the norm, you just need to determine if some of the things and topics in FE are in the category of possible
Right. And a lot of them are, actually. But not all. There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane. It's just not geometrically possible. The FE response is to simply deny that we do know the distance between places. Given that we have GPS, which you acknowledge works, and a global travel/shipping industry that demonstrably gets stuff around, that's quite a stretch. I asked you a few times how you think GPS can accurately tell you your co-ordinates if it doesn't know where those co-ordinates are in relation to other co-ordinates and you repeatedly dodged the question.
There are other things which are possible. UA could be a thing and works quite well as a replacement for gravity. But then we observe variations in gravity. The FE response is either to deny those variations exist or hypothesise a separate mechanism which explains them. And that's what FE seems to be - a combination of denying things when they don't fit your model or hypothesising mechanisms to explain them. You simultaneously claim that you did the Bishop experiment - the results of which you have provided no evidence for. But you also hypothesise EA which render those alleged results impossible.
Rowbotham's book makes all kinds of crazy claims like the moon is self illuminating and translucent. He makes it clear in the book that his motive is religious fundamentalism. There's a reason he has been largely forgotten by history.
A lot of people fall in to FE because of a combination of a conspiracy theory mindset and, frankly, ignorance. If you love a good conspiracy theory AND you are ignorant of science and the globe earth model then that's a dangerous combination. Some of the Wiki articles you mention demonstrate some of that ignorance. The three body problem has no analytic solution but there are numerical solutions which do a perfectly good job. The moon tilt illusion is, as the name suggests, an optical illusion - a line which apparently arcs up and over the sky like a rainbow is in fact straight and it's trivial to satisfy yourself of that fact. These things have been explained to you multiple times.
I can see how people fall in to the FE rabbit hole. The interesting question is how people get out of it. Ranty FE did recently and he did so by doing his own analysis on images and realising they weren't possible on a FE. But for most people who fall into FE it seems impossible to get out of because they don't analyse evidence objectively. Any evidence which shows FE to be impossible is dismissed or simply denied. Any claims which seem to back up FE are accepted unquestioningly. And that is why, to answer the OP, debates don't convert any FE people. Because they have the conspiracy theory mindset and it robs them of the objectivity needed to assess things correctly.