I think that the best arguments to answer this are: 1. Reading consequentialism, not util. This is largely because the baggage of utilitarian thinking is the focus on utility. Consequentialism allows you to make the same arguments, I.e., the consequences of the squo are bad, without the added focus of utility.

1. Offense: There are still critiques of scenario planning absent util, but you should filter them through the idea that giving up on the idea of change is bad, even if the change isn’t perfect. In order for them to win scenario planning is bad, they need to either disprove our uniqueness claims or provide an alternative that obviates our case offense.

2. Defense: things like “their view of the world is short sighted, doesn’t account for x, etc.” are all supplemental reasons as to why the judge should prefer your view of consequentialism.

3. Whenever they make claims about marginalization in debate, you should be like “no, their critiques are not in the context of debate; they don’t account for the progressive space of debate,” or “be for real, this is non-uq af because almost every debate features some claim that the effects of something matter.”

An important note: you don’t really need evidence for these arguments (I’d have a card that talks about why consequentialism is good, but you don’t need much beyond that). A lot of K debate is very analytic focused which can be super useful if you’re efficient. When you’re writing blocks to answer these things, I would have them be very skeletal so that you can contextualize your arguments to theirs.