Could I suggest that any video only rebuts the point that the previous video makes and you are allowed to make one point in addition? It would make each video short and sweet, and also make the debate cleaner.
One might be a little small: two or three may be better to give a more representative image. Five does feel a little ambitious, because as it's unlikely an argument'll be conceded for a little while, you'll be in the situation of discussing ten points per video, and typically refutations can go through multiple levels and would cover multiple possibilities, which would need to be responded to in turn...
That could get hectic fast. I can see twenty topics at least by the third video.
Talking about any topic for that length of time, you'd end up exhausted by the end, and might go into far less detail than you would need to. Jeranism might be more adept at it, looking at the lengths of videos on his channel, but I doubt watchers could keep track of everything.
In the interests of a good debate, a couple of extra thoughts:
No new topics to be introduced beyond the first five/three/whatever of each side, as standalone arguments. That way it'll be far easier to keep track of if any point gets conceded, and should avoid the discussion ending up too messy. So, if one party concedes "Yes, that isn't a good argument for my point of view over the model you're proposing," (which wouldn't mean conceding the debate: I can be a REer without defending the dodgy coriolis-plughole arguments that pop up from time to time) they can't just replace it, and one less point will be discussed.
More can be added to refutations, of course, so long as they are in fact refutations.
The idea's to avoid the debate getting too out-of-control, and hopefully giving it a natural life.
Clear divides between points. Partly just to make responding easier, but mostly for if refutations do end up involving subdivisions, it's cleaner to respond to 6a/6b etc, and it will hopefully make evading a point (accidentally or otherwise) harder. I've seen a few discussions on this forum where part of a post doesn't get responded to because it seemed like part of the same argument to the reader, while not to the writer. if all separate points are marked, then the possibility of that happening accidentally gets removed (and if the same answer holds over multiple subdivisions, it wouldn't be too hard to just say "In response to 4b and 4d..." and combine them).