Some quick replies, then I'm moving on.

Yet U of T holds one of the top spots in the world ranking as an institution. Why don't we start rolling down the standings (and we've been climbing them compared to 10 years ago)? If this is true then it should hold in the long run.

My point was about implementing your plan, which U of T is (thankfully!) not doing. So you didn't read what I said carefully. And there would be repercussions on that plan, but it would take time to set in. So even if this were a point about U of T's current plan--which it isn't--it would take more than 7 years (since the last CA) to show. A process of devolution doesn't happen overnight.

I asked you to point out a PhD thesis in the past 5 years that was directly correlated with more prestige for U of T.

That is, of course, extremely hard to prove. Most theses aren't winners of prestige in the way you seem to think. They often make an impact in a very small research community, which, over time, generates improvements in those fields. (Again, I'm worried that you don't understand university-level research...)

After reading the arguments all the people on the union side have made, I've been very opposed to the union side.

It doesn't count as an open mind if you judge based on your predetermined views about the value of unions and of PhD research.

I don't want to pay tuition because I only take 4 courses in 5 years: WHY SHOULD I PAYYYYYYY????? :( (Because you need to pay your share for being a student.)

Fair share of what? Most students are done with courses after year 1 or 2. After that, they research and write a thesis. They aren't taking courses; why should they pay as if they were? When you say "pay your share", you're assuming students should have to pay. I'd encourage you to look into the fallacy known as 'begging the question'; you commit it frequently.

Anyway, that's all I'll be saying here. Have the last word, if you'd like.