It’s a long video so I only skimmed some parts and didn’t finish it. The guy doesn’t fully understand PoS as he thinks validators can post invalid blocks which isn’t true. He’s not an expert in the subject he’s arguing about so take his views with a grain of salt.
He seems to really value proof of work being related to the physical world whereas proof of stake is more abstract and that is where most of his argument comes from. This is opinion based though as I personally think being linked to the physical world is a downside of proof of work as there will always be someone bigger than the miners in the real world. E.g. if the US military wanted to take over bitcoin, they could do it easily.
With proof of stake being more abstract and virtual, ethereum essentially creates a virtual ecosystem where the ETH token is the most secure token within the ecosystem and you need to take majority control of ETH to take over ethereum. The ethereum ecosystem creates its own rules on who is powerful so is harder to control.
Secondly he links proof of work purely to electricity which is available everywhere but he’s missing asics. One of the arguments he made was that if someone had 60% of the stake they could take over the network but with proof of work, people could add more hash power to defend the network. Maybe in theory this could happen but in reality, only asics matter for hash power so most people can’t defend the network in an attack. If someone malicious had 60% hashpower it would be gameover for proof of work as they could only reference their own blocks to prevent others receiving block rewards which would put other miners out of business. Also asic production is extremely centralised and if the people building asics became malicious they could take over the network.