Having read that, I wanted to get some thoughts down before I read JoeG's response.
1) Ogre MKV makes a strong case that ID is anti-evolution by any reasonable definition. He builds a case that is it first necessary to define intelligent design and what it supports, and then goes on to cite conflicting definitions, all of which are anti-evolution.
2) Of the many people I have encountered via the internet, JoeG may well be the nastiest (thus the "Troll"). The more I think about it, the more I wonder what Ogre was thinking when he agreed to this debate. I will try to keep an open mind about what JoeG might say, but ... I've encountered him before at Uncommon Descent (where he is moderated) and his own blog (where he is vitriolic), and ... I expect more nastiness.
[ ... time passes ...]
And now I'm back from reading JoeG's opening statement, which was rather disappointing, but at least it maintained civility. The post consists primarily of long quotes of things other people (Wells, Behe, Dembski, etc.) say about ID, and winds up saying that ID has little to say about pretty much all aspects of evolutionary theory ... except the "blind watchmaker thesis". The blind watchmaker is a favorite topic that JoeG brings up often, and always as an argument against evolution. Maybe JoeG does not understand what "anti" means? (Ogre thought of that too).
Ogre MkV has cross-posted JoeG's opening statement. I can't actually recommend it, but there it is.