I'm not stranger to playing Devil's Advocate: I, in fact, do it rather routinely--at least once a month--on the IIDB But some positions I never take the converse on--I never, for example, argue against Jesus' historicity, despite ample opportunity to play the case. Likewise I never argue against Jesus as a prophet of the eschaton.
It's hard to argue against yourself. My post wasn't nearly as strong as it doubtlessly could have been, which has given me pause. To be sure, some of it can be blamed on a lack of ample time for forethought, and justifiably so. But I'm not sure that this ad hoc amounts to much: I could put together a post in favour of eschatology with little trouble, and of substantially greater strength. Some of it can, of course, be attributed to the simple fact that it's the opposite of what I'd normally argue: If I could think of arguments against my position that I couldn't rebut, I wouldn't be so steadfast in the position.
Nonetheless, a failure to articulate the positions of your opponents points, I think, to a potential danger of becoming closed-minded; of rejecting opposing positions on the basis of their conclusions, rather than their argument. With that in mind, at some point in the (relatively) near future, the reader can expect a bit of a dialogue between me and my good friend, Ryan Saunders. Something of a point/counterpoint series of posts.