I have to agree with Alecmonroy: A > B is no different than B > A.  What I would recommend is to completely reorganize the section by criticsm, instead of the "Pros" then "Cons" approach.  What I mean is, say the general stuff first, like who is doing the criticizing, who is doing the responding, etc.  Then outline one criticism.  The immediately afterwards mention responses to those criticisms.    Then go onto the next, and so on.  What seems most important to me is how neutrally the prose goes from one to the next.  If it's something as simple as "A says x, but B say y."  Then that's still set 'em up and knock 'em down. Also, using this format, it almost requires a bit extra emphasis given to explaining the criticisms in comparison to the rebuttals.  It is, after all, a criticism section, and if you're going to lump them all together in only a single section, they should get their due weight.