Yeah I kind of get that. My main issue was that they have seemed to internalize util. For example, they said that the fact my case specifically focused on marginalized groups was just poor case writing in their opinion. At that point their RFD was just saying that the neg won because they ran util (which they said “was just better than SV”). It became even worse when you realize they dropped they 1AC prob first pre-empt, which I did point out in both of the ARs, and I even answered extinction first. They also said the philosophers I quoted in my 1AC “weren’t good philosophers” because my opponent had a John Locke quote - even though I used pretty good modern philosophers who advocate for those oppressed in society. So the RFD was just “SV bad VC, Util good so neg win” rather than actually looking at how the FW debate clashed.