Supposedly someone gives a feedback on MSO pertaining to SE web-application (addressing to SE developers). Then other MSO users think that its not constructive or not worth the effort, they will show their concern (with snarkiness or otherwise) in the comments. They might down vote OP and move on.
If the disagreeing user happens to be more credible than the OP, most of the visiting users will follow his/her lead and start down voting the OP (probably just for the fun?). Moreover, it seems like the forthcoming users won't bother to read the comment/justification by the OP (even if the OP is able to addressed the concern or even negate the critic's point-of-view with proof). They will just shoot -1 to OP and +1 for critic's comment.
In other words:
Mr.A has identified and reported a legit problem in SO system.
Mr.B thinks, its not necessary due to XYZ reason ("its very petty/its very unlikely/its a waste of time and effort"), so he post a comment and down vote.
Mr.A argues with ABC reason which evidently answers the XYZ ("here is a solution, it requires a very less effort probably a copy/paste").
Mr.B never admitted or denied, but the following visitors will follow the set pattern, downvote Mr.A (until his negative scale is exhausted) while upvoting Mr.B's comment even he was owned by Mr.B.
Mr.A considered Mr.B's point is valid and closed the question.
Normally feedback is supposed to be 'either take it or take a pass'. Exploiting and start bashing the person giving feedback and convert it into a dispute (or even personal vendetta) is certainly not a very sane idea and it looks very unpleasant unless it is so affirmative that "if someone doesn't agree with your idea, then you can't argue with them unless you are equally reputed (here on meta)".
To avoid this puzzlement/ugliness, should there a separate view for the feedback posts with no negative vote option? In my opinion, when the dev team members review and decide that a feedback's worth a try or not (on the basis of feedback itself, votes-if-any, comments and justifications), they may update its status (probably by tagging it?) accordingly; Active, Under Review, Started, Closed, Won't Fix.. (similar to uservoice.com?)