Let's suppose I write a book expressing how the political situation in my country is bad, because X and Y reason. Then some outsider comes and says I totally don't get the point or criticizes my work in any way, without understanding the depth of it, missing the whole one point of the thing, criticizing it as if I was making everything I wrote out of my head, when in fact I did not theorize or gave any opinions, but just outlined what is actually happening in the country.
Another example would be, I studied medicine and at some point I start doing some research on how to cure a certain disease, let's say HIV, since I really think I can find a cure or at least better treatment for it. At some point, I DO find a better treatment or a cure for it, whatever it may be, so I go on and publish the due academic papers explaining everything about the newfound medicine/treatment and the whole medical community understands it is a good and valid thing. However, some other doctors come with their butt hurt assess and with their PhD's, ready to disguise my work with some bullshit counter argument like :"Despite this substance now being known to cure the HIV - I strongly believe no one should use it since it is known to cause strong diarrhea, and as to prove this I show you the fact you'll have to shit your gut outs to be cured, as it is documented in paper X, Y and Z already". I mean, they totally miss the point, with arguments that despite not expressing hate, are quite observably either stupid, irrational, misleading, or plain bullshit, or just not constructive at all.
In other words, I'd like to know a word used to describe people who attack a legitimate work/opinion, especially one whose value is easy to understand, without really caring to verify if what they're saying is constructive or not, or don't care to at least back their arguments up with something solid. Notice that here I'm not talking about a hater in the proper sense, but a person whose argumentation is weak or solely based on feelings when criticizing.