Creationists present several lines of geological evidence to support the global flood as described in the Noah's Ark story of the Bible. Here I carefully examine and debunk this evidence, and I also highlight many geological facts which conclusively disprove the claim that a global flood took place 6,000 years ago.

9/11 truthers claim that "thermite chips" were found in the dust after the collapse of the Twin Towers. They also point to the presence of "iron microspheres" which they claim are further proof that thermitic reactions are what ultimately brought down the buildings in a controlled demolition. As I argue here, none of the many lines of evidence provided to support these claims actually stand up to scrutiny.

The corporate media's news coverage and commentary is biased because of several different factors. These include the influence of advertisers, the media's profit-driven business model, parent companies and board directors having stakes in other industries, pressure from shareholders and investors, outright top-down censorship, the internalization of desired values, and an over-reliance upon official sources (namely the government, military, and business organizations.)

The corporate media uses a variety of techniques to propagandize people and shape public opinion. In the first 9 Democratic debates of the 2020 election, these techniques include repetition, constraining the range of debate within acceptable boundaries, opening the debates with smears against progressives when viewership and retention is high, framing criticisms in question form and hiding behind the words of others to guard against accusations of having an agenda, and asking different candidates more or fewer tough questions—and also having a lesser or greater policy focus—based upon their political ideology.

Deniers of manmade global warming claim that we can't trust climatologists because they lie for grant money. This claim is ridiculous for many reasons. Number one, climate scientists make very little money. Most grant money also gets spent *doing research*—it doesn't just get pocketed. The funding doesn't produce the consensus; the consensus produces the funding—and there's no reason the data collected in this research couldn't disprove AGW. The fact that it doesn't isn't proof of conspiracy; it's proof that deniers are wrong about the science! They don't make this argument about other fields because they work backwards from their conclusion, and the evidence cited as proof of these "lies" simply doesn't show what they think it does.

In the CNN Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders was accused of being a sexist. Here I explain how transparently silly these criticisms are. I also debunk some anti–Medicare-For-All talking points, look at some at some of the horribly framed debate questions, laugh at Pete Buttigieg's consistently evasive answers, and talk about Joe Biden's foreign policy policy promises vs the Obama-Biden history of exploiting the AUMF.

Chiropractic care simply isn't as effective as people think it is. The claims made about its medical benefits are hilariously overstated, and much of the research in this area suffers from an obvious, detectable bias. The theoretical underpinnings about what it is that chiropractors do also doesn't match up with the facts, and many of the benefits people report could be caused by the placebo effect or other confounders. When tested, chiropractors arrive at wildly different—sometimes contradictory—diagnoses of what's "wrong" with a patient, and the real-world harms that result include injury and death.

Many claim that CBD cures or reduces anxiety, and here I examine the lines of evidence used to support this view. Personal anecdotes aren't good enough because of the placebo effect and other confounding factors. Animal studies don't necessarily map onto humans, and showing that CBD counteracts the effects of THC isn't the same as proving that it has standalone effects of its own. The clinical trials do show that CBD reduces anxiety, but where you can measure the effect, it's quite small. More studies are needed with larger sample sizes to better understand its effects, and for several reasons we should be cautious and skeptical of the current CBD market.

Despite what centrist Democrats argue, a public option would not be better than Medicare-For-All. It would leave in place the insurance company status quo and provide little more than a dumping ground for sicker, unhealthier people. It would also fail to bring down the cost of healthcare administration in this country—which a single-payer program could easily cut in half. Polling questions are often slanted against Medicare-For-All and in favor of a public option, and support for single-payer skyrockets when you present its positive aspects and don't lie about it. The German healthcare system has many crucial differences between the proposals put forth by centrist Democratic candidates.

Centrist Democrats argue that Medicare-For-All is too extreme a position because many Americans like their private health insurance. Here I argue that even if people like something, they can still support switching to something better. Satisfaction with the coverage and cost of Medicare is higher than for private insurance—and M4A bills would further improve the program. Banning duplicative health insurance would eliminate the perverse business model of finding every excuse to deny people coverage. Despite the high amount we pay in premiums, claim denial rates are at about 20%.

Opponents of M4A dishonestly talk as if the program would take healthcare away from people rather than providing all Americans with comprehensive care. Tethering healthcare to employment keeps people in jobs that they hate, and union contracts that sacrificed wages for healthcare benefits can simply be renegotiated once M4A becomes law.