Okay, I've been staying out of this but now I just have to: what kind of extraordinary qualifications do you have to unilaterally decide which votes are valid and which are not? Is it as simple as any vote that disagrees with you is automatically "bullshit"?
Have you considered that people are just downvoting you and moving on because they feel that the flaws in your arguments are apparent enough that they can just click the down arrow without having to type a whole essay about it?
And really, why should anyone have to type out a whole response to justify clicking downvote? What makes your opinions so astronomically important that they deserve everyone's full intellectual energy or none at all?
John Roberts Begs the Liberal Justices to Stop Criticizing the Court (newrepublic.com)
The chief justice doesn’t like his conservative Supreme Court colleagues getting called out for judicial overreach.