I can agree that a well formed opinion can be a good thing. However, it is also valid to admit to a continued open mind (not in the 'political' sense, but in the 'undecided' sense.) I don't see ANY problem with continued indecision, as long as it doesn't excessively delay or impede someone's life.
Even though I am sometimes passionate, I also *FEEL* that it is valid for me to admit to a lack of commitment, admit to a poorly formed opinion, or even sometimes not even being interested enough to form an opinion.
So, I don't dismiss your intellect or interest simply because you might not have a fully formed opinion on various subjects. Perhaps the most unpleasant and/or least valuable contribution is when an individual has many low quality (poorly formed) opinions, yet is willing to loudly express those opinions. For example, I tend to avoid 'heated' discussions on Usenet unless a claim has hit a 'nerve.' The proverbial 'me too' response in a Usenet discussion is probably just as silly as claiming the success of socialism as an imposed system. (Please, I am not arguing exactly that issue, but my position is that a system needs to be allowed to organically evolve and maintain some kind of equilibrium without TOO MUCH meddling, esp by 'intellectuals' or 'politicians'. Too often, individuals from those groups have motives other than to be 'organic' participants directly in the systems that they wish to control.)
It is better to admit to oneself (and the people in a discussion) when an opinion might be poorly formed or perhaps that the participant is simply not nterested in the subject. On subjects that might not be interesting to the participant, it should be acceptable and natural that the 'opinion' or position is 'null' or weak.
It might be a flaw, or even be slightly dishonest in a pure sense, but I do try to consider the feelings or intellectual depth of various individuals who are participants in a discussion. I feel comfortable when expressing slightly different (but fully compatible and consistent) opinions and arguments depending on the audience. (Children vs. teenagers vs. adults vs. elderly vs. socially conservative vs. socially libertine). I try to make sure that my positions are consistent, but might be expressed differently so that the position is understood to the extent of the ability of the audience. On the other hand, I strongly dislike the kind of 'adapting to the audience' where INCOMPATIBLE or INCONSISTENT opinions are expressed. Sometimes the imprecision of language will cause minor inconsistencies, but our (US) politicians TOO OFTEN make inconsistent assertions and express opinions that are so very different depending upon audience that those speakers can't be considered doing anything other than intentionally telling lies. The better the communication skills, the stronger the opinion, and the wider the gulf between statements, then dishonesty, lack of dependability and capriciousness is strengthened. (Here in the US, those attributes related to prevarication are strongest in the left.)
Bottom line: it is probably more admirable to be humble and accept not having a strongly held opinion rather than to contrive an opinion. Sophism isn't helpful :-).
John