It's funny that this suggestion seems so radical considering that a somewhat related discipline, debate, requires participants to argue both pro and con through

It's funny that this suggestion seems so radical considering that a somewhat related discipline, debate, requires participants to argue both pro and con throughout the course of a competition. I remember realizing that by arguing both sides of an argument, it was forcing me to concentrate on the mechanics of argument rather than the actual topic. It didn't matter which side of the argument was better, only which side was argued better. Similarly, I'd expect lawyers who were forced to alternate between prosecuting and defending to concentrate more on the mechanics of the process and less on the result.