I initially migrated this question from here to Meta.SE in the hopes that exposure to "the bigger picture" there would help to alleviate any suspicion that you've been singled out here by anyone personally. Since it is sort of a perennial topic, I presumed that it would be closed as a duplicate of some pre-existing question (such as the one linked by Ghanima), and this would help to make clear that you're certainly not the only person to have felt this way, and that there are lots...and lots...and lots of discussion around addressing it already.
I also used to feel that downvotes were not really a productive mechanism, and that the first downvote should require a comment. However, I still use downvotes, so I can't deny seeing some merit in them, and while I usually will leave a comment if mine is the first, I don't always.
Requiring them for every downvote would be a bit ridiculous -- it wouldn't be any different than adding "great answer!" for every upvote and in addition, might start to seem nasty. Enough on that.
That means after the first one, most people aren't going to feel obliged to say anything. With regard to the first one, probably the first comment on the "migration rejected" dupe is a good place to start:
Imagine this: you comment, whenever you downvote. And many times, what you get in return is abuse - people ranting at you, swearing at you, possibly downvoting all your questions/answers. Question: how quickly do you stop commenting when downvoting?
This is a significant point that, despite my own misgivings about downvoting etc., can be made to fit very well with what is probably the core of my own philosophy regarding the ultimate purpose of similar SE mechanisms. Please do read my answer there, but TLDR: the major concern is about resources.
If a downvote is intended to indicate something a member of the community does not think is worthwhile (and consider Oded's second comment "downvotes are for the good of the site, not the individual who asked"), then turning those into deeper drains on the limited resources of the site by requiring an accompanying debate defeats the whole purpose. People who might otherwise be spending their time doing more positive things would end up wasting much of it with bickering, something this format, vs. traditional forums, helps to minimize.
Of course, helping someone understand why their question/answer isn't appreciated could still be regarded as a positive activity. But like any kind of problem solving, experience plays a big role here: People will shy away from things where they perceive an inevitable net loss, positivity wise, for their efforts.
Getting more specific, let's consider one of the questions I presume set this off:
There's a recently deleted answer there of yours most people can't see, but we both still can...anyway, I noticed the whole thing probably the day it was first posted, and saw it evolve, but decided to stay out of it (largely because of what I've already mentioned, that I consider my time a resource which I must manage).
However, I agree with the points made by others there, including the downvoters, that this is not a positive contribution to the site.
First, it seems very rhetorical; you aren't really asking if Samba is enabled, you're stating it as fact, then you end up answering it yourself. That's fine; quality self-answered questions are encouraged. Unfortunately, it isn't really composed well that way. Your answer seems more like a continuation of your question that wasn't really a question, and it's all just about proving that Samba is enabled by default on Raspbian.
Personally, I'm pretty sure it isn't, but TBH I don't care at all (which is another reason I did not get involved) because I am positive it isn't running on any of my pis. I don't use Samba because I have no use for Samba.
But let's presume it is, and that your original question was honestly what it ostensibly is: "Is it enabled, because it seems to be?". In that case, there's a simple and definitive stepwise way to determine this:
What processes or services are required for Samba?
How can it be determined if these are running?
How can it be determined how they were started?
If they were started by the init system, how can we check if this is enabled by default from, e.g., an unadulterated SD card image?
However, looking through the entire Q&A, IMO you did not attempt to tackle any of these steps. That's fine too -- so you don't understand this. No one understands everything, etc. But you seem to skip straight through the whole process of trying to learn anything. Keep in mind that part of the whole thing with the Q&A format, and what I mentioned before about the core of my own philosophy regarding use of resources here, is that it isn't hand-holding. On a traditional forum, someone might start something based on very flawed premises, then the thread takes an unexpected turn as various people point that out, and really you are into a potentially vast ball of yarn.
Not here. A major reason that SE has been so successful is that (as I try to explain in the "billionaire in a restaurant" Q&A) the people who in reality do the most push-comes-to-shove helping probably get burned out by the vast ball of yarn and appreciate something more focused, that makes it easier for them to manage their time and maximize the positive effects. Put another way: I know I'm long-winded, but I'm still not here to chat endlessly. Except when I'm in chat. Which is a separate place.
So, when I see something like that, I might, if I were going to say anything, say your methodology is seriously flawed and leave it at that. If you want to figure out how to do things properly, then you'll have to ask more questions, separately, yourself. This helps to create a sort of firewall against
I got a chuckle out of Cunningham's Law recently, because its something I used to exploit consciously pretty often, and in fact that's part of what got me into being what I hope and believe is an asset to the "online technical help" world. Done badly, it's just passive aggressive vampirism, but done well, I think it ultimately does lead to positive results not just for you but for a larger community.
How do you tell the difference? One of the barometers we have is of course:
Whatever your game is, if you start to notice this happening to you too much, time to take a step back and figure out why.
Figuring out why is not necessarily easy, particularly since no one is bound to explain it to you, but at least you have a clear indication that what you are doing is not being appreciated by the people around you.
So the real question is probably not "Why downvoting at all?" but "Why downvoting for this?". I've addressed that a bit here WRT some of your recent posts.
In the future, if you run into this problem again, ask about it here in the context of a specific post. Doing it in the Q&A itself probably isn't effective or appropriate, because that's not the actual topic of the Q&A.