"Cubicles are worse than open-plan offices" is a strong opinion, but so is "Only brain-dead worker drones would put up with having to work in a cubicle."
Putting an uncertainty measure on the two statements won't have the same effect (to be clear, adding an "I am 90% sure that.." preface to the second statement changes very little).
The point is that you are willing to passionately argue for your side—as opposed to passively avoiding debate—but that you’re not simultaneously ignoring the arguments presented by the opposing side.
The original article here is seemingly little more than a straw man argument against the quoted philosophy.
It's advantageous to define what these two things mean up front for your team before engaging in debate in this spirit. In my experience, defining strength of opinion as confidence in coverage of potentially relevant circumstances and defining looseness of holding as eagerness to identify blindspots in that coverage can help dissipate some of the toxicity.
This doesn't hold for all types of decisions.
