Here are some general thoughts that might be helpful in addressing opinion-based questions, some types of which probably should be on topic.
The law is certainly opinion based, and this is, of course, why we have various forms of judicial opinions (majority, concurrence, dissent, plurality). For properly formed questions, differing "opinion" would tend to crop up in the form of multiple answers to a single question. This seems well and good. But what is a proper question?
When we get into the subjective realm here on Law.SE---which is an important part of the law---perhaps a good broad-pass filter is: is this the sort of question one could write an opinion about that would have a solid grounding in law or fact? Under this interpretation, we'd probably be happy with something like: "Here's a fact pattern about a bar fight...under the laws of California, what are some colorable excuse-based counters to a battery charge, and have courts tended to accept them?"
However, the answer to a question like the fourth, "Why does X think legal services practice is more stimulating than...," doesn't have any basis in law. We'd then ask, does it have any basis in fact or the application of facts to laws? In this example, X states mere personal opinion, albeit based on interesting observations. This seems better suited to a book club or discussion group since it would be hard to craft an answer that brings out the nuances without in-depth knowledge of non-law/fact aspects of secondary sources.
That brings up a second rule-of-thumb: is the question better suited to a discussion tag? If so, we don't have such a tag on Law.SE...just on Meta, at which point we could ask whether it belongs on Meta in the first place.