(1) It's interesting that his first refutation automatically (subconsciously) presupposes that Charity is a moral good. I wonder how he defends that. If it is good to buy people dinner, then at best, only 50% of the population could ever be "good" simultaneously, since the other 50% would be the recipient of the meal. And, if that's the case, why would I want to buy a "bad" man a meal?
(2) By far, the better argument, since it falls immediately to the theist to explain how morality is more than simply the caprice of their God. However, he bungles his case, by introducing the term "objective". Morality is only "objective" (or, more properly described, "universal"), because the tools we use to judge it, are absolute and objective: empiricism and logic. Failing to note this, he runs the risk of a flurry of "is-ought" complaints in his comment section...