I am talking here about opinions to do with beliefs rather than facts (i.e. religion, morals, politics etc - the sort of things that have no definite answer, just a series of arguments for and against, which might be more or less convincing, but are hotly disagreed upon by people here and elsewhere).
When I was younger I didn't have strong opinions about most things - 'don't know' was my standard answer to almost everything. But more recently I have started to develop strong opinions about some things. This has advantages in some ways (I can define better who I am), but at the same time I regret the reduction in open-mindedness that inevitably seems to occur - once a strong opinion is formed, it becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to truly appreciate the opposing position - and if you do appreciate it equally (and I don't mean simply at an intellectual level, but on a more emotional level), then I would argue you would not hold the opinion that you do, but be undecided.
Indecision about moral or philosophical questions is seen as weakness by many people, but confronted with equally persuasive conflicting evidence, is it not more logical to admit defeat and instead of choosing one side or the other to accept that there may not be an ideal solution?
Are you opinionated, or more open-minded, which (if any) is the better stance to take and are these two things mutually exclusive? I expect disagreement here because I have met people with strong opinions who insist they are open-minded. However, a little probing generally shows that they can be quite intolerant to serious consideration of opinions other than their own (hence the 'self delusional' that I have added to this option). Argue about this if you wish.
p.s. I realise that anyone who is truly open-minded should also be open-minded about this poll and therefore probably tick the 'don't know' option rather than the 'open-minded' option - this might skew any conclusions somewhat.