No neutrality in apologetics

Which school of apologetics (classical, presuppositional, etc.) do you embrace and why?

Very simply, I embrace presuppositional apologetics, because the classical school relies too heavily on the mind, or reason, as an avenue to God (convincing unbelievers of God’s existence through the use of argument). This is problematic, as our reason has also been radically depraved, and cannot comprehend the things of God without His grace (Rom 8:7-8).

Not to pooh-pooh the classical school. It is useful, especially in confirming the faith of believers, but it's limitations should be recognized, like the dwarves' goodness, one post down.