That would have troubled me too. Giving an account of the pro’s and con’s of an issue is not the same as being forced into being devil’s advocate.
See post 55. You should also know that the questions were usually quite general, broad issues. I imagine this may have changed recently. It is still understood that the judges are looking for your skills, not your morals. It is an intellectual development exercise. The debaters do extensive research and bring cartons of it with them -- some of the aspiring lawyers bring it on dollies. The judges and participants are a closed shop. They are well aware that people are presenting their "cases" and can be called upon to argue either side at any time, without warning. It is helpful to think of it as a sport, in that regard. The skills on the field of battle are what is judged.