Yes, the "low hanging fruit" arguments.
I've tried raising the bar of discussions with many atheist debaters on this many times. Occasionally I find those who hear the arguments and offer valid points of view that differ, but the norm is more just assuming what I am saying is the same low-hanging fruit arguments they are skilled at swatting down.
I've pretty much been convinced that's because that is the limit of their own understandings of these things, and that is why they are "unbelievers". But then so am I. The god they don't believe in, and the reasons for it, is the same god I don't believe in either. I am a rationalist, but I don't stop there. Richard Dawkins' god for instance, is pretty much the God of fundamentalist beliefs and nothing more elevated than that. I'm an atheist too, if that's the standard.
As I said, I've not listed to these folks, and maybe they have deeper more philosophical views, rather than the typical Noah's Ark can't be really real type debunking beliefs. While those are useful for a fundamentalist questioning those types of beliefs for themselves, they don't speak to anything deeper than that for me.
It's not a done deal once you accept the earth isn't 6000 years old and that donkeys can't really talk in human language. Deconstruction is the easy part. But where do you go from there? A purely physicalist view of reality is functionally as mythological as flying horses are.
Maybe you can point me to some time markers in the video, as I really don't have the inclination to listen to 1 1/2 hour videos.