Several times in a discussion about things: politics, religion, science, particularly, I have been offered by the person with whom I am disagreeing that we should "agree to disagree."

 I state that I will not agree, because, in my not at all humble opinion, this formulation is used when someone can't make a cogent argument and won't cop to it.

It doesn't mean that the person is necessarily incorrect. It could be as simple as being tired or out of sorts or not having the right information to hand.

 But, when I hear (read) that the person wants to "agree to disagree," all I can think is that this person is intellectually dishonest and doesn't have the ethical standards to admit that s/he isn't able to defend her/his position.

The most common examples of this behavior are right wing trolls (ocularnervosa, for instance), Obamalamadindongs: those who have a defense for any action or statement from our current president, regardless of it's unconstitutionality, illegality or counter-productiveness (Frank Apisa is one of the prime examples of this) and the believers in religion and theism (as a Unitarian Universalist, I can tell you they are not the same). Mostly see them on Facebook.

So, my question is, Do you see a flaw in my observation?