Take it from a 5th year debater: judges will not vote on a specific criterion or goal or whatever. It's a waste of time to run, especially because then the other team becomes obsessed with debating it. For some reason people love debating criterions =P.
Also, having your main Advantage or your main Disad as the "criterion" or "goal" seems pretty dumb to me. It's a cheap attempt to weigh your impacts against theirs without actually doing any impact weighing.
Excellent debaters win by re-framing the debate. For example, before the United State's federal constitution took effect, the Anti-Federalists argued that a federal government would usurp power from the states. Instead of arguing that a federal government wouldn't usurp state power, the Federalists re-defined the debate by arguing that power lies in the hands of the people, not the States. If the people (through their representitive) approve of the federal government, then no usurpation has occurred. In this way, they defeated the anti-federalist position with three famous words, "We the people..."
Having a goal and criterion isn't about saying two fancy words and pretending like they magically hand you the win. Rather, they should fundamentally re-frame the debate. In some instances it may be helpful to call your re-framing a, "goal and criterion," other times it may be more helpful to just re-frame the debate without fancy debate lingo. Re-framing is powerful. Debate jargon is not.
That being said, it's extremely difficult to effectively re-frame a debate. It requires deep insight and penetrating thought. Learning it requires practice and careful thought. Heck, I debated for 6 years and never got the hang of it.