I like the way that you cut to other videos to use as evidence to backup your claims. Unlike Oliver, who takes clips and commentates them to derive his points, you choose videos which stand as points themselves. In terms of argumentation, Oliver relies on the validity of his clips, the relevance of the connection between the clip and his commentary, the validity of his commentary and then the connection between his commentary, point, and intermediate conclusion. Your use of clips relies only on their own validity and its connection to your point.

However, I felt this critique was quite partisan (especially when mentioning either Trump or Clinton). Don't frame your discussion around Jill Stein or the other candidates, frame it around the line of reasoning you're debunking. I think maintaining focus on the content rather than introducing new material would help the soundness of your counter-arguments. In the same effect, things that he didn't mention don't matter unless they misrepresent fact. You only do this once though, when you point out Pill's lack of lobbyist support.

In terms of the cutting and stuff, It looks like the camera was hand-held, and I assume that method of production meant filming was rushed and thus the reason why there was so much cutting. It really does help an enormous amount to get a tripod, take your time filming, and redo lines to get them in larger chunks.