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.
Haha, well, it's not really that bad At least you have the honesty and integrity to admit to faults, unlike many R=U defenders.

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.
That's a fair enough point I suppose. The FAQ does indeed focus more on demonstrating the weaknesses of each individual argument than the arguments seen as a whole. Perhaps it could be edited somewhat to give a bit more focus on their possible cumulative effect.

Now, I agree that the theory relies on several 'hints' to argue for its validity, but I believe the FAQ demonstrates that ALL these so-called hints either have perfectly reasonable explanations which do not hint at R=U or simply are too weak to be considered a hint. Even when you add up all those hints which are considered too weak, the argument is still too shaky though as it rests on a highly shaky foundation. I mean, compare it to say the theory that Laguna is Squall's dad. None of the main hints used to back up this idea have alternate explanations which are at all reasonable. The hints, once spotted, can be seen to virtually unambiguously point towards the same conclusion. This is not so with the R=U theory, yet if true, it would be even more important to the plot than Laguna being Squalls father.

Although one or two of the hints may be reasonable enough (eg. the possible origin of Ultimecia being Artemisia) in themselves, considering the boldness of the statement "R=U", they are not nearly enough to make a convincing case.

But it's true though that the FAQ focuses more on demonstrating that the theory was certainly not intended by the authors (hence the focus on the Ultimania), so you raise a valid point. If you feel that the points DO add up to make case though, you're going to have to argue for it =P

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.
The rejection of Griever as evidence is not based on the assumption that R=/=U, I would think that much is clear after he has been discussed at such length. The rejection of Griever is based on the fact that the game (especially the japanese version) readily offers an explanation for the summoning of Griever which does not imply R=U in any way.

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.
Well, the regular arguments for extended lifespan are all discussed, although not nearly at as great length as they used to be, due to the Ultimania. Without the Ultimania, it is possible to make a case for extended lifespan (albeit not a VERY strong one, as I believe the relevant counterarguments in the FAQ demonstrate), which is really the quintessential step in even beginning to make a case for R=U.

As for the purpose of this debate, I suppose if we can agree that the theory was clearly not intended by Square when they wrote the story, we may well debate the plausibility of the theory based entirely on the game itself. In that context, I would say that although a case for the theory could be made, it would not really be very plausible at all, especially because the alternate theory of Ultimecia's background ("The Unjust Persecution" as discussed in the FAQ) still stands as far more plausible all things considered.

PS: Don't worry about having to post quickly or anything. If you don't feel you have the time to cover all you want, just wait. There's no timelimit to the debate or anything.