No, that's not how I think it works. You enter into an agreement to purchase the house from the seller, who agrees to sell you the house for a certain price denominated in whatever currency. Not having the requisite amount of currency on hand to pay the price outright, you turn to the bank. The bank then agrees to settle your debt with the seller in exchange for a lien on the house and repayment of the agreed price to the bank. The transfer of title and money is handled through escrow, so the buyer doesn't directly pay the seller, and the seller doesn't deliver the title to the bank.

With fiat, you're correct that the money is created. It's created at the Fed and disbursed to banks. With fractional reserve lending they can lend even more money that they don't have. However, this is by statute and is authorized by the largest lender in the land: the Fed. While some banks go beyond the statutory limit for fractional reserves, the banks within the statutory limit are guaranteed by the Fed. That's why it is the lender of last resort. Not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is.

My point is that, even with 100% reserve requirements, bank loans for houses would still follow the same formula, and the buyer would still be responsible for repaying the amount owed to the bank. If the bank provides the requisite amount to the seller, they've met their obligation.

We can argue about the legitimacy of cashless transactions in bank databases and the nature of currency, but ultimately if the seller receives their agreed-upon consideration from the bank through an agreed-upon debt obligation between the buyer and the bank, the buyer is responsible for repayment.

I'm curious to see this video you mentioned.