"I Disagree" is not an Opinion

Perhaps it is the Toastmaster in me, but after listening to a young man explain something clearly, I pointed out that his message was diminished because he said "irregardless" three times during his explanation. I suggested to him that the correct word is "regardless." He told me that they mean the same thing, and he proved it by showing me that it is in the dictionary and its one meaning is "regardless." I pointed to the type of word it is, which is a "nonstandard adjective," and told him that "nonstandard" means "used incorrectly."

He thanked me for pointing that out to him. If he did quit using it in his explanations, his willingness to change will increase his credibility to those whose opinions he may want to sway in the future. However, even if he develops his skill to convey complex messages in terms that are easily understood, there will be somebody somewhere who tries to dismiss a message with "I disagree" and claim that it is their opinion if pressed for an explanation.

There is a different problem with "opinion" when we go to the dictionary than there is with the nonstandard definition of "irregardless." "Opinion" is a standard word with several definitions depending on the context of its use. However, none of those definitions are "everyone has one (see also: nose)." 

"I disagree" is a statement or conclusion, but it is not an opinion. An opinion is the explanation supporting the statement or conclusion. Judges offer opinions regarding their decisions. Appraisers offer opinions supporting their estimated values of things. Our opinions about people may change because of things they say or do. We may seek a second doctor's opinion to see if they draw the same conclusion about an ailment. We can even base our conclusions on opinions that are delusional and irrational. 

However, defining "I disagree" as an "opinion" is nonstandard use of the word. It is a statement that is intellectually bankrupt. 

The inability or unwillingness to give an opinion supporting the disagreement is more indicative of prejudice than intelligence. Figuratively, that can be worse than a broke person sharing his wealth, which is relatively harmless. It is more like people with less than nothing to offer pooling it all together to create a chasm that cannot be spanned through reasonable discussion. 

Problems are resolved through reasonable discussion that takes into account different points-of-view. Prejudices are worsened through thoughtless dismissals of other people's perspectives on matters. People who have nothing to add to a discussion need not say it out loud. 

In the time it takes to say "I disagree" and claim it is an opinion and not a prejudice, someone might have contributed something far more intellectual like "I didn't understand something you said."