If a theory does not make you 'less confused', it doesn't mean that the theory is wrong or bad. It could just be that it is the way how the world really functions, that some things are truly unknowable. Consciousness might be one of those things that will never be solved (yes, I know that a statement like this is dangerous, but this time there are real reasons to believe this). Of course, it is always a good thing to try find flaws with the theory.

"Separately, there exists a not-yet-understood reason within normal physics why philosophers talk about consciousness and invent theories of dual properties.". Minds also have the delusion of 'free will', so I don't see that argument as a major one.

"But based on my limited experience, the Zombie Argument may be a candidate for the most deranged idea in all of philosophy." It is irrational to reject an argument because it seems absurd. However, it is a good reason to study the argument to find flaws.

Your first argument is that zombie worlds might not actually be logically possible. Fine, it is a possibility, but if you accept that minds can work by computation and that zombie worlds are impossible, it would mean that certain algorithms cannot logically exist without some kind of consciousness popping up into existence.