Attempting to preempt downvotes is passive aggressive and adds nothing to the conversation; adding emphasis is doubling down on that mistake. It never actually works toward preventing downvotes, and instead attracts them. That makes it difficult to know whether the person is trying to lure downvotes on purpose for self-fulfilling prophecy reasons, or whether they actually believe it helps to try to preempt such.

If your argument has merit, it can stand alone. Responding to an avalanche of downvotes after the fact is the only thing I've seen on HN that makes sense. For example to try to counter a perception (eg if you think your argument is being taken incorrectly, or challenging the downvoters to discuss why they're downvoting; that can draw out more substance to a conversation).