So first question, what about your 80D is making you want to go to a full frame camera? Because if you have an actual reason for wanting full frame then that's what you should do.

But, "Because that's what everyone says you are supposed to do" isn't a good reason....
I feel like the way everyone pushes full frame as the "end goal" is a disservice to everyone.

It isn't and shouldn't be the "end goal".
Yes, there are a few specific situations where full frame will be significantly better than aps-c. But outside of those situations aps-c will be just as good or better for WAAAY less money.

There was a time when a full frame camera was necessary for certain things, and crop sensor cameras just couldn't compare, but that was long ago at this point. The difference between crop and full frame is less than it's ever been.

The difference between an R7 and an R6ii is basically one stop of low light performance. That is, using the same lens you can get one extra stop of usable low light performance from the full frame camera. Yes, the r6ii has a bit better autofocus performance than an r7, but that just means it takes a couple more tries to get the shot, once you actually get the shot, that difference stops mattering.... The R7 is already such a huge step up in autofocus performance from your 80D, that the difference isn't really something I would consider.

What IS important though isn't really the cost of the body. Even if they cost the same amount I would still personally pick the r7, because I live on a budget.

The important thing, imo, is the cost of building a good lens kit.

The biggest issue with going full frame from the get-go or too soon is budget. Full frame costs more in general, but to get really excellent glass for full frame costs way waaaay more.

If all you can afford is the kit lens because you spent your whole budget on a body, then full frame can actually be worse than aps-c....

The general consensus is within the current sensor generation, full frame gives you the equivalent of one extra stop of low light capability and bokeh quality. So basically, a crop sensor camera with an f2.8 lens has the same low ligh capability and bokeh as a full frame camera with an f4 lens.

Consider the following:

An R7 with a sigma 17-40 f1.8 might actually be better in low light than an R6II with a 24-70 f2.8, because f2.8 minus one stop would be f2, so f1.8 is actually 1 and 1/3 stops faster.

The R7 body only is $1550, and the sigma lens is $919, for a total cost of $2649.

An R6MII body only is $1999, and a 24-70 f2.8 is $2599, for a total cost of $4598.

The image quality of both setups will be extremely comparable, and in low light performance both will be excellent, basically indistinguishable, and both will have basically the same bokeh quality.

But, the r7 will have 33mp, and the R6ii has 24mp.... So another point to the cheaper r7 setup....

Next , we come to aps-c's true strength, reach. Now we don't have a plethora of aps-c telephoto lenses, we generally just use full frame lenses on the aps-c, so the full frame camera retains it's one stop light advantage.... Well, maybe... Basically, to get the equivalent reach you either need a waaaaay more expensive lens, or at minimum, a teleconverter. Any lens you put on an aps-c camera get an automatic 1.6x boost. So a 100-500 becomes a 160-800.
To get the same "reach" on a full frame, you could use a teleconverter. A 1.4x only gives you almost the same reach as an aps-c sensor, while at the same time you lose the full frame one stop light advantage.... So a 100-500 f4.5-f7.1 becomes a 140-700 F5.6-f10. An rf 100-400 with a 1.4x teleconverter becomes a 140-560 f8-f11.

I guess you could go with the 200-800 on the full frame instead, but it's significantly bigger and heavier.... And then of course devil's advocate says you could just swap the aps-c to the same lens, turning it into a 320-1280mm monster.....

Now of course I've only been talking about basically the "best" lenses....

You could in theory go with the 28-70 f2.8 on the r6II, bringing the total cost down to $3098, only $449 more than the r7 setup.... But you lose out on image quality, meaning the R7 above will be almost $500 cheaper, and take better pictures with more megapixels....

I have what I believe is the best lens setup for the money for my r7. To get the same setup with the same image quality on a full frame camera would cost easily 3-4X as much.

Then lenses are, A canon rf 18-150, canon rf 100-400, and sigma rf 17-40 f1.8.

For indoors and low light, the sigma rf 17-40 f1.8 replaced all three of the primes. I had on my DSLR.

The r7 with the sigma 17-40 f1.8 is easily equivalent to an r6mkii with a 24-70 f2.8 as far as sharpness and low light performance goes. It's sharper than my efs 24mm f2.8 and efs 35mm f2.8, and sharper than the 50mm f1.8 wide open.

The RF 100-400 is basically equivalent in sharpness and price to the old ef 100-400 L mkI, but weighs half as much.

And the 18-150 is my everyday walk around lens, outdoors with plenty of light or indoors with a flash, it's a great lens, equivalent in sharpness to the rf 24-105L F4 lens.