I don’t think the “in Adam” “in Christ” parallel is flimsy at all. Not one non-universalist thinks that Paul was teaching elsewhere that we die “in Adam” a merely physical death from which we need Christ’s salvation. And if they did, they’d actually be logically concluding Christian universalism here by Christ’s salvation of everyone from the mere death that we only needed to be saved from!
No, if “all die in Adam” means a spiritual death that we have died (and/or shall die) and need salvation from, then being made alive in Christ suggests for the same all an appropriately topically parallel life–or rather a life superior to the death (unless we are supposed to be putting death, or “the Death” as Paul puts it here in this same section, i.e. probably referring to Satan, on equal par with Christ. Which no one in the NT ever suggests.)
But since it’s theoretically possible that local context may clarify a different meaning than what the thematic prior context of the verse would otherwise indicate on the face of it (“all die in Adam” --> “all made alive in Christ”), then I don’t mind in the least going to the local context, which does in fact talk about the resurrection and punishment of the wicked under Christ.
And then talks about the finishing of the punishment of the wicked under Christ.
And then talks about what the results of that finishing are: not annihilation, and not continued rebellion, but loyalty to Christ in conjunction with the Son’s loyalty to the Father.
A rebuttal against verse 22 by itself only seems to succeed by appeal to further local context–which is correct so far as it goes–but Christian universalists appeal to more of the local context in total there, not merely verse 22.
(I have also found rather staunch evidence at the end of the chapter confirming Paul’s intentions there in the middle discourse on eschatological resurrection. The link goes to my forum article on the topic.)