My gut reaction after I read the 2AR was that outlier won too, mostly because I felt that the risk of their DAs to the alternative outweighed my DAs to info-overload and normative political engagement. Would you think that I would have gotten your ballot with the following things?
1. Spend less time rehashing impacts in the 2NR, and instead allocate more time to the alternative. This probably would have helped resolve the issues you pointed out with not knowing why you should vote for intelligibility, how we can't fully solve liberal violence, and why double-turns/cooption is actually solvency for the Neg.
2. Argue that even if political structures aren't inherently bad as per Zanotti, the form of information itself makes productive engagement with those structures within the Aff's framework impossible because the oversaturation of information makes tools ineffective/they get reabsorbed by the system, and thus the alternative is a better orientation towards those structures by defying them with unintelligibility.
3. You said "I don't think the debate-level argument of the Affirmative is effectively translated by the Negative into the impact debate", so I think that I should have explained that the debate sphere and the policy sphere can't be separated - ie even if the Aff can overcome info-oversaturation to develop conceptual tools for activism like they said in their answers to normativity, the way in which those tools would get utilized is bad. I would basically be arguing that training debaters to "master information" and work within institutions turns them into bureaucrats like Karl Rove who invade countries to eliminate the unknown - unfortunately, I didn't really develop this argument in the block