I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. The main reason this doesn't make sense is that conditions only apply to creatures, not objects.
Appendix A: Conditions (PHB p. 290)
Conditions alter a creature's capabilities in a variety of ways and can arise as a result of a spell, a class feature, a monster’s attack, or other effect.
If you want to deal damage to an object, you should look at the Statistics for objects section of the DMG (p. 246) which deals with assigning AC and HP to destructible objects (and is too long to quote here in it's entirety).
The formal logic arguments
RAW, a condition applies various effects on a creature, but suffering from those effects doesn't mean that you are subject to that condition. So if you are incapacitated you cannot take actions or reactions, but if you can't take actions or reactions it doesn't mean you're necessarily incapacitated. This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent:
If P implies Q, the only inference that can be made is non-Q implies non-P.
(Non-P and non-Q designate the opposite propositions to P and Q.)
This is known as logical contraposition.
Even so, ignoring everything said so far, picking some of the effects of a condition ("it cannot take actions and reactions"), suggesting that that infers the condition ("it seems like it's paralyzed"), and then deciding to apply the rest of the effects for that condition ad-hoc (giving advantage to attack rolls) is not a very sound train of thought.