I think this response is great. Good use of simple, complex and compounding sentences. As well as well-chosen examples. In future, you might consider using one of your paragraphs to refute a possible counterclaim to your position. Further, I think there were some errors which affect clarity. I have had a go at editing this response:

As Seneca The Younger once said- "He who decides a case without hearing the other side, though decides justly, cannot be considered just." Any idea which hasn't been contented, cannot be considered foolproof. Whether it's a government policy or a scientific theorem, it is important to critically analyze each aspect of an argument, by taking into account different situations it applies to, weighing the advantages and disadvantages, providing evidence to support the argument and consider instances where it fails. This can either lead to the victory of the idea or development of a better one. The provided argument evaluates the strength of an idea through its performance in critical evaluation- which is indeed the best way to test it. It is the foundation of democracy and the pursuit of scientific progress.

Switzerland is a country known for its high level of general happiness and wealth of its citizens. One of the key factors is the presence of direct democracy- involvement of citizens in policy-making through debates and votes. Several years ago, the Swiss government proposed the highest minimum wage in the world for its citizens, which seemed essential at first due to the high cost of living. However, it was voted out by about 70% of the public due to the success of the free market and how a high minimum wage would increase production costs and further increase the cost of living. This is a classic example of how a seemingly fair solution to present crisis was rejected due to its effects on the economy in the long run. Even a government body, elected by majority of the people, can be myopic when forming policy. Therefore, all ideas,- no matter where they come from, should not be applied until they are thoroughly debated.

Another instance of importance of dissent can be observed in the scientific community: the emergence of string theory. In the past, scientists have use Quantum Field Theory (QFT)- a theory that defines energy in form of packets to understand the behavior of 3 out of 4 forces in nature- electromagnetism, to explain strong and weak nuclear forces through mathematics and experimentation. However, QFT is unable to explain the behavior of gravity. This marked the rise of string theory- which explains the behavior of all four forces of nature. However, string theory describes everything in nature in form of small 1-D strings or loops instead of packets. Even though the theory changes how we have perceived everything to date, many scientists are working aggressively to debate QFT through string theory. Moreover, it is not yet a universal fact, since there is no evidence yet to prove string theory. However, it does pose serious questions on how we have been evaluating the world, up until now. For this reason, it is a well-funded area of research. The scientific community has yet again proven that the reason behind the exponential growth of understanding of a 13 billion years old universe, in a few centuries: debate every idea, question everything and argue with evidence.

In conclusion, the most thorough way to evaluate an idea is through debate. It is only through listening to an opposing viewpoint, we discover loopholes. Without any contrasting viewpoint, an argument cannot be considered foolproof. This ideology is the reason why we consider freedom of speech an important factor in a nation's progress, as well as it use to discriminate between the theory and fact. Without dissent, there is no growth.