Nearly 20 years of experience in the activity has taught me one thing - logic trumps evidence and strategy. There is no substitute, no viable alternative to persuasive reasoning. And a debater will not truly discover rewarding intellectual growth extending beyond the years of participating in policy debate without developing the powerful critical thinking skills necessary to eviscerate opponent's arguments in the absence of evidence. All of my personal beliefs in argumentation are aligned with this thought.
However, with respect to this website and my pedagogical philosophy, I take an approach others rarely do - I take that of the losing side. My mission is to educate others; not by spoonfeeding evidence and answers, but by challenging the very reasoning others advance. I will twist and turn the knife of logic into any argument. Quite probably, I will goad you into responding but know this - I mean no offense. I use this technique as a means by which I encourage lively and stimulating discussions from which I hope we can learn something.
I am also a strong proponent of equalizing destructive forces in debate. I am perpetually amused by the establishment, the same folks who introduced and mainstreamed the critique, failing to recognize they are destroying the activity with the introduction of things like MPJ, offense/defense paradigm, critiques of zero relevance, and a narrow, homogeneous selection process to the TOC.