I think it’s the opposite of what you’re implying - instead I expect that a response that was boringly in line with prevailing opinions would be marked as a poor response. As would one that was counter but only controversial for controversy’s sake.

The idea would be to present well thought out and interesting arguments, not to be an ideological filter to make sure people agree to prevailing opinions!

I definitely hope so, but most academic institutions don’t seem to be that open minded. Hopefully Oxford is unique enough to be different.