Sure, why not?
1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.)
I would not assign myself a single number here, since the question is too vague to be properly answered. (I suppose that would make me a `0' by most lights.)
2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design?
I've yet to see a properly formulated argument. `Specified complexity' is, I think, beyond salvaging. `Irreducible complexity' could be an argument, if ID theorists (i) did convincing work on the positive side of their theory, and (ii) were more convincing in demonstrating the inadequacy of naturalistic explanations.
3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design?
That it is not a theory; rather, it is a collection of poorly-formulated arguments around which a political movement - still agnostic on the designer question? - has not-so-mysteriously built itself for obvious political reasons.
4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?
See (i) above. Formally, you want to avoid committing the fallacy of probabilistic modus tollens. The fact that a particular outcome of evolution, e.g. a flagellum, is very improbable given evolution, does not mean that observing this outcome diminishes your odds on evolutionary theory. Rather, one must establish that such a structure should be more probable than that, especially by providing an alternative theory, itself significantly plausible, which makes such structures likely. For IC to be evidence of `something else', you have to have a predictive theory of `something else'. I could add that the difficulties supposed IC structures pose for evolution are themselves not nearly as severe as ID theorists say, but for that to even matter, ID theorists have to present an adequate theory. (No, I don't think that analogies from human designers are going to cut it.)
5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?
If you provide a theory which is sufficiently well-formulated as to actually be contrasted with naturalistic theories, we can have that discussion. The spirit of this and my answer to (4) should cover (6).
It's been a while since I've argued about ID, but I haven't seen many changes.