When I said “the first argument” I meant the website linked in #6. I should have been more precise. The accuracy of the Peri Reiss map is also demonstrated at the website linked in #12. What remains is a very weak rebuttal that you linked to which rests on a main premise which is false.
I’m afraid that doesn’t make things better for you. The first link rails against “official science” for saying Antarctica has been covered with ice for millions of years, arguing that the Piri Reis map shows it wasn’t. Then out pops from nowhere the assertion that Antarctica was ice-free 6,000 years ago, and off the writer goes into lunatic land, absolutely failing to show that its premise of Antarctica being depicted is even correct.
The second link might as well be a pathetic mumble. Yeah, it’s a map of Antarctica, it claims .... but first you have to accept that the map omits 5 degrees of longitude here, 16 degrees of latitude and 20 degrees of longitude there, 9 more degrees of latitude and an entire sea passage here filled in by imaginary land. Procrustes would be in awe.