The game is played by answering - or avoiding - the following
questions:

1:  Is life intelligently designed?

The choices are Yes, No, and I Don't Know. Regardless of the answer,
the questions that follow are the same, and contrary to common
misconceptions, the answers need not depend on the answer to Question 1
either.

Questions 2 to 4 include many specific follow on questions, which
answer the "parent" question in ever-increasing detail. They are:

2:  How long has life existed on earth, and how long ago did certain
major events, such as the beginning of the Cambrian period, occur?

3:  Is life related in a phylogenetic tree? Specific questions include
such ones as "Are humans related to dogs? dogwoods?"

4:  By what mechanism(s) do species originate? Specific questions
include such ones as "Did past species originate by the same general
mechanisms that have been determined for those speciation events that
have been observed directly, or were other mechanisms involved, and if
so what are they and how can they be tested?"

The strategy for the ID critic is to move past Question 1, which
science can't answer anyway, and get the audience to learn as much as
possible about Questions 2 to 4. Extra points are earned if he can get
the ID advocate to state his alternative answers to Questions 2 to 4,
and how to test them, without referring to Question 1 or to any
incompleteness in current explanations. Note: no ID critic has ever
earned those points to date, but points can still be earned if the ID
critic gets the ID advocate to show clear signs of evasion.

The strategy for the ID advocate is to avoid Questions 2 and 3 at all
costs, and, whenever Questions 4 is addressed, to take the ID
critic's answers out of context and lure the audience back to
Question 1. Extra points are earned if he can lure the ID critic back
to Question 1 too, or if he can get the ID critic to call him a
"creationist" before he proposes any alternatives for Questions 2
to 4. Another trick is to vaguely suggest that incompleteness or
disagreement in mainstream science's answers to Question 4 implies an
alternative answer to Questions 2 and 3, and a "Yes" answer to
Question 1. This is often easy because most audiences are predisposed
to think that way.