Within a long video, the relevant clip can be pointed out by its time stamp. The longer original video serves as a proof that it is not doctored.

This should be a "But" node, not a "However" node; because it opposes the original premise.

Unlike videotape that had to be viewed strictly sequentially, a video can be viewed from any random point. So if the relevant clip is pointed out, we can skip the rest easily.

"a text could take even longer to read"
-library of babel

A video is irrefutable proof of a truth. Within a video, if the proof appears at a specific moment, its time stamp can be pointed out.

Providing a video proof engages the opponent. It does not attack him personally (=telling him to f*** o**)

[I repeated this as a "But" node, to show how it compares with a fallacy. Now this node can be opposed, but not the fallacy. Also, the fallacy leaves no trace of the sender.]

i just watched a video that explained undebatable why you are wrong only with sounds a visuals.
i would put the link in the source but i don't want to be rude towards you.