On one hand:
I encourage people to give merit to posts that are objectively high-quality, not just posts that you agree with.
And on the other hand:
Aside from that, if people complain about whether things deserve merit at all, then that's something to perhaps think about, but if you conclude that they're wrong, then that's that.
In other words, you can send merit to whoever you like for whatever reason you like, but preferably it should be given to high quality posts, i.e. ones that contribute to the discussion. It should not be used simply as a "like" or "agree" button. I have personally merited posts I completely disagree with, even ones which are arguing directly against me, if they are of high quality and well thought out. I also have a much lower threshold when considering what is "high quality" when it comes to newbies and junior members. We all had to start somewhere, and if it is clear they are here to discuss and learn, and aren't here just to bounty or signature spam, then I'm usually pretty liberal with my merits in these cases.
Authors of original threads have to do lots of works to compose their threads: Reading, Searching, Composing, Editing. Repeatedly do that before click on Post button. They actually edit their threads many times after that.
Effort != high quality. A high quality post might only be a couple of words long, if it directly answers a technical question or problem, for example. There are also plenty of threads dotted about various boards, but particularly in Beginner's and Help, which I'm sure the OP spent several hours composing, but if the information contained within them is wrong, inaccurate, simply copied from other sources/other posts, not relevant to crypto, not useful, and so forth, then I don't think that's of particularly high quality.