"He was implying that there were numerous riots in Berkeley recently" --- Sorry but we don't even need to argue if that's what you actually believe he was implying. You read way more into his comment than you should have. The implication is that he would have to "stand" (or 'deal') with riots. That doesn't mean there have been multiple riots at Berkeley recently. And I only said I had been to Berkeley because you asked, no need to be immature.

The ramifications are the global stigma of Berkeley that has now been exaggerated to all conservatives around the world. This riot has effectively made it so that whenever he mentions Berkeley to his friends they might respond something like "oh the school with the Milo riots?". That is ''dealing'' with riots. That is having to "stand" the riots. My entire comment was responding to your arguments. I simply ended by saying you are wrong. And are you really trying to tell me you don't have a number one school? In my opinion the most likely path for my life is to go to Berkeley. Therefore I am planning on attending. I wasn't trying to imply I was a shoe-in, I was just saying that in my mind my plan is to go to Berkeley.

And I mentioned my academic standing because your rhetoric during this entire discussion has been entirely childish and condescending. You don't have to act 'holier-than-thou' when talking about your opinions on the internet. Telling me that you "suggest I look up" a fallacy is entirely condescending. If you would like to explain the fallacy or claim that I am falling under it that's fine but don't tell me to look it up.