This principle was used in medieval disputation. The Summa Theologiae [1] of Thomas Aquinas is broken down into "articles" that examine every aspect of a particular broader "question". Each article begins with a series of "objections" that attempt to state the best possible arguments against the position that Aquinas will take. The next section has a relevant quote from authority, and then Aquinas explains his position. Finally, he provides an answer to every objection. Although reading something written this way is difficult for modern readers, I think it provides a healthy antidote to the craziness we have today.
This is a fantastic resource on in general - note that Thomas often wrote _better_ objections than those who held the positions he would argue against. That is, he would take the arguments he disagreed with and make them more cogent, more reasonable, and provide more applicable facts and citations than were in popular circulation at the time. Then he would counter these _best_ arguments. The point was to find the truth, not to win the argument.
That said, the _Summa_ assumes that you are reasonably familiar with the works of Aristotle and Plato - so some arguments (or counter-arguments) may sound arbitrary to those who are not yet familiar with those works.
Even if the subject matter doesn't tickle you, I would recommend any intellectual curious person should read through three or four of them just to get a sense of the style in use.
There is certainly an argument to be made that producing this sort of document ought to be a (not "the", but "a") end-goal of more philosophical conversations. Probably created by multiple authors, though. I think there's a case to be made that while a one-sided screed will always have its place, there isn't enough work put into this sort of back & forth right in one place structure.
1: http://summa-theologiae.org/