No, I was not arguing "technicalities". I was arguing about opinion.
There are some areas of academia which involve facts and some that don't. I studied science and would never presume to think I know as much as someone with more experience in specific areas of science.
But there are other fields, such as art, literature,and especially social "sciences" where things are far more subjective. Think about what passes for art, poetry or social research in universities today.
I graduated from college years ago, but went back recently to take a course for my own enrichment. There is a lot of pressure on the students to go along with the prevailing popular opinion among the faculty, even when it directly contradicts their own experience. It is treated like dogma. The professors give lip-service to the idea of intellectual inquiry, but don't actually value or reward it. Students that can parrot back whatever the professor believes are most highly rewarded.
I regularly challenged the professor, not caring what effect it had on my grade, since that was no longer important to me. Most of the other students were afraid to do that, though they would agree with me in private conversations. I think the professor was threatened by me, because he had no power over me.
Because I engaged him in conversations and challenged him to defend his ideas, I found that sometimes even his experience contradicted what he had been taught in grad school. But rather than question his teachers, he had so completely internalized the lessons that he denied the obvious, rather than than question the dogma in view of apparent reality. It was kind of sad. And now he is teaching this kind of mental gyration to others.