Even if you were right about Harvard not being a real school (which is a strange thing to claim), your conclusion still doesn't follow.

Separately, is there a name for this debating technique? I would like to call it "baiting the assertion".

You claim A => B where, in fact, A does not imply B. To distract attention from the faulty logic, however, you pick a highly divisive assertion A. That makes people argue about whether A is correct, instead on focusing on the faulty implication.

Here's an example: "Ukraine provoked Russia therefore we should send 0 aid to Ukraine"

(I have seen this argument both in the US and non-US discourses.)

When this argument is presented, people feel compelled to argue whether Ukraine did or did not provoke Russia. However, this hides the fact that _even if Ukraine did provoke Russia_, if might still make sense to provide aid: - due to humanitarian concerns - because you think the Russian response (even if provoked) is not commensurate - because you think the EU should present a united front - etc

However, saying things like "even if you are right <rest of argument>" is a difficult thing to do when A is a very divisive (or glaringly incorrect) statement, which is why this is a common troll argument.