The other side is:

• it challenges you to formulate your disagreement
• if the community holds awful takes they never get exposed to a differing opinion (although moderation can do that too)
• there’s people out there that believe: more upvotes = more true and Formulate their opinions based on that
• “dunking” and “ratio” only work if the content of the comment/criticism is valid. Otherwise its just showing your ass

I’ve seen countless good comments downvoted on reddit and .world with no engagement whatsoever just because it didn’t fit passing lurkers worldview, but is otherwise factually correct. Forcing you to comment instead of downvote, let’s lurkers vote based on the content of the comment (obv this lays a burden on moderation, but is worth the tradeoff as it can foster really good discussions and higher understandong of the topic at hand)

Mainly because regardless of the vote being cast as that vs a general “I disagree”, it’s still an indication of disapproval of the commenter.

Here’s the disagreement: one is a disagreement that allows you to vent without challenging yourself, the other is a disagreement where you know what the disagreement is about

You’re conflating downvotes with criticism. Also if there’s no downvotes you’re more inclined to comment (and criticize) because you can’t lazily downvote