Except of course that almost everything he says in that video is crap.
His first criticism of her is that she hasn't read the source material, something he also hasn't done. But she does tell us this upfront, and gives us the source that she is using. Making it a pretty weak criticism, one that must also the leveled right back at him.
His next criticism is that she does not give equal billing to the treatment of men and women. But of she will deal with that later on. Because her argument is all about how women are treated differently than men. But first she has to lay her ground claim, after that she will support it. That is how arguments work.
His argument that revenge is a basic plot style is more impactful, and is might be a valid criticism. Unfortunately he really doesn't take any effort to refute the argument that Sarkeesian makes that women are portrayed as the victim to a much greater amount.
His next several arguments all boil down to 'They are not superhero's so they don't count' but the trope is not just about superhero's losing their power, it is about fictional female characters who had been "killed, maimed or depowered." This is stated on the very wikipedia page he references just a moment before.
"Is it only women that get tortured in comic books, or is it only offensive when it happens to women" She is still laying out her argument, she will get to why she believes it is different when it happens to men. Try to remember that she is not really talking about torture, but the treatment of women in comics.
"So it is offensive when a female gets tortured, and it's offensive when they get killed off panel without a battle." No, it seems he doesn't understand what we are talking about. Once again we are not talking about torture. We are talking about how women characters are treated differently from male characters. The question that he should have asked is, would this have happened to a male character? Sarkeesian's argument is that it would not have, that male characters are treated with more respect. That is what you have to refute.
Okay, next talks about how much fail there is in her narrowing her scope to pull overarching patterns out of the comic book narratives, and gives an example of studing one tribe and determining that is how the whole world is. Of course, Sarkeesian had just finished saying that it is not like that all the time, or every comic. Also, that is exactly what he is doing here, taking bits of what she has to say and pulling it out to look at patterns. And of course if you really stop and think about it you will notice that it is the sort of thing we do all the time. It is so common we have come up with a word for it, statistics. So, I think his criticism on this point is the real fail here.
Then he goes back to his argument on confirmation bias, he asks why men don't count. Which is a good question. But he then puts Sarkeesian's answer to that question in the very next clip, which is because when it happens to men it is almost always a plot device to make them come back as even more powerful or relevant. That is a fair argument, it shows a clear different between how male and female characters are treated in comics. Sarkeesian's argument has always been that women are treated differently then men in comic books, it seems that this is still true. Now it seems that the definition of 'Women in Refrigerators' is now "fictional female characters who had been killed, maimed or depowered and don't come back even better." You could maybe make an argument that she has moved the goalpost, but I don't think you can call it confirmation bias at this point, at least without a much stronger argument than he is giving us.
So, as you can see it was not taken care of. The video you pointed at amounts to nothing more than a rant, not a rebuttal argument.