That's not, ipso facto, illegitimate. It's a matter of argument whether it's illegitimate. For instance if ID is not, in fact, a real scientific controversy, there's nothing the slightest bit illegitimate about consistently taking that point of view. For the same reason it's not illegitimate to consistently present only "one side" of Holocaust Revisionism.
You need to argue convincingly that ID really is a presumptively or potentially viable scientific theory, or at least the basis for some theory. To take the approach as presumptive that it's "only fair" to present "both sides" (independently and prior to the FACTS of the situation) is nothing more than wishy-washy relativism and intellectual affirmative action.
2. "it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy ..."
Well, I guess you aren't aware of the numerous public debates that have been taking place on the issue. A couple of examples are linked in the Newsbusters piece. You might want to check those out.
But this SUPPORTS exactly the point I was making! That the ID controversy is a POPULAR one, not a scientific one.
Scientists may engage in popular debates about, say, the implications of science for public policy issues, and other such matters. But they don't debate the substance of scientific theories themselves in such venues. Debate within science invariable occurs before COMPETENT audiences who can meaningfully challenge the claims that may be forwarded.
Of course interested members of the general public can attend such debates in most cases (maybe at the cost of a conference fee) but such debates are not held FOR the general public. If you're targeting your debating primarily, indeed almost exclusively, at the general public, then that's a pretty sure sign that, whatever you're doing, it isn't science.
BTW: This debate invited Darwinists to grill ID proponents on the science. The 5-6 Darwin defenders included Dr. Larry Herber, prof. of Geological Sciences at Cal Poly Pomona and Dr. Bruce Weber, Prof. of Chemistry at Cal State Fullerton. I was there. The Darwinists did not fare well at all.
2. The position that ID is "not science" reveals that you 'd be best to educate yourself on the issue. At post #37, I've posted a number of helpful links. If you want to be honest and informed on the issue, you may want to check those out.