It really depends on your preperation against the case. But, I have a couple general suggestions.
1. If, in the round, most of the arguments you plan to run are stock issues, then hammer the criterion of stock issues. Some general ways to outweigh NB with stock issues are 1) Stock Issues are essentialy the rules of debate and 2) Apriori. Before looking at anything else in the round stock issues are first and foremost important.
2. Now, If most of your arguments are very impacted (ex: Counter-plans, Disadvantages, etc.) then you should choose the criterion of net benefits. Some ways to outweigh other criterions include 1) NB is real world. In debate, we should emulate the real world to have the most realistic point of view, and to best prepare ourselves for the real world/educational value, and 2) All other criterions fall under net benefits. (in the ex of stock issues: Significance. In the real world/nb if a case has no importance/impact, this obviously would bring no net benefit. Also with solvency, if a plan can't solve, theres no benefit)
3. For more specific criterions like Justice, or Economic Prosperity, I'd say that this narrows down the round too much and that we need to look at the overall impact by using net benefits. Then again, all specific criterions like these fall under net benefits as well. And well... there aren't many things to say as the affirmative with such a narrow criterion.
I personally believe that Net Benefits is the single best criterion and should be used in most all cases.