Okay! I'm actually in a slight hurry but I though I should at least say something towards the debate, even if its only half-ready.
Basically I realised that for the most part of this debate I was getting my ass handed to me. A large reason for this I think, is that I've been playing defense. To try and rectify this I checked out the FAQ, though I admit, due to time constraints, I only read the responses to the pro-R=U arguments, and skimmed the rest. This has left me with a couple of points to make:
First of all, whilst I do have a lot of respect for the way that FAQ is written (I skimmed the time theory bits, and its pretty clear that a fair grip on theories of time going on), I don't feel it gave R=U as fair a trial as it could. My main problem with it is that although it gives each argument a fair trial (and much more informed than I could have, I learnt quite a bit reading it), it repeatedly treats each argument individually, but acknowledges their strength. had they been otherwise supported. The problem with this is that there are a lot of arguments for R=U, which on their own certainly don't indicate R=U, but cumulatively might. I at least didn't see a point (other than after a couple of examples, one of which the FAQ 'claimed' to be refutable which I'll discuss in a moment) where the arguments were considered as a whole. This just doesn't seem fair to me. R=U relies on many arguments working together, of course they can't stand on their own.
Although this only partly applies to my point, and isn't something I'd rely on to support what I just said, here is a direct example:
"Ultimecia behaves completely different from Rinoa, to the point where they might as well be considered different people even if you assume R=U. Considering that Square would certainly want to try and make
people understand their plot, it seems somewhat odd that they then failed to make Ultimecia give us even the tiniest indication that she was once Rinoa."
Now this is all well and good... however it only applies if one has already rejected Griever as evidence. Griever can only be rejected as evidence if one assumes R=/=U, something the above statement is trying to support.
Now onto my second point. The guide dismisses a lot of evidence that sorceresses have extended lifespans, and it does so (not entirely I admit), but certainly as part of its final blow, by relying on Ultimania. I know that the guide's purpose was to show that Square do not suggest R=U, so it is perfectly reasonable to use Ultimania. However, as I think we have agreed, our purpose is to debate whether FFVIII itself indicates R=U.
Anyway, as I've rushed this, my point may not be as clear as I'd like. R=U relies on many separate, but co-supporting arguments to defend itself. A table stands on four legs, if you take away a leg it will fall. But equally one can not expect a table leg to stand up on its own.
Just a side note: I want this thread to stay open as much as anyone, can people avoid defending this in posts that don't talk about anything else. Unfortunately the case to keep these threads open is far weaker than to close them, and the only way we can show that this thread isn't like previous ones is by staying completely on topic, even if ironically this might mean that we are limited in our ability to defend it
PS. Sorry I haven't actually directly responded to anyone, or really offered any direct arguments, I really am in a hurry, and felt that the above things took priority.
At least you have the honesty and integrity to admit to faults, unlike many R=U defenders. 
Originally Posted by f f freak
