Firstly, let me say hello and welcome you to the board.
While I am a Voyager "hater" I always welcome the discussions that arise from people who have differing opinions from my own so I hope you'll stick around and provide me with a challenge.
I’ve only seen any episodes this year through torrenting, and after having seen all 7 seasons of Voyager, 2 of DS9 and 2 of TNG, I personally found Voyager to be by far the most impressive of the bunch.
Red flag.
I'm not saying this in an insulting way, I'm merely stating a fact, but here you admit to speaking from a position of ignorance. You have only seen seasons 1 & 2 of TNG and DS9 and you'll just have to trust me when I say that those seasons are not representative of either show. TNG only really managed to take off in its third season and the golden age of that show was years 3-6. DS9 is the same, the first two seasons are very different from what came later, seasons 3-7 have a very different feel to them and I hope you continue to watch the series and find out why I and many others consider it the greatest Star Trek series.
One of the common criticisms I’ve read on my short stay as a lurker on this board is that Voyager lacks continuity. For one thing, this is only partially true, as there’s some aspects of the show that do retain continuity, such as b’Elanna’s and Paris’ relationship, the monthly contact between Star Fleet and Voyager in the later episodes, the existence of the Delta Flier, among other things.
That's not really continuity though, that's just not fucking up.
The reason why people harp on about Voyager's lack of continuity is because DS9 ran concurrent with Voyager for most of its run and DS9 had a great sense of continuity most of the time. DS9 built several stories over the course of its run and things built up to epic confrontations at the end of the series. They dropped the ball on a few ocassions, there can be no denying it, but most of the time they were successful.
I’ve also seen complaints about the implausibility of the sheer amounts of torpedoes and shuttle crafts that Voyager expends. However, there are so many ways to account for this. It is well known that Voyager takes many excursions to nearby planets to replenish on supplies such as dilithium, so that alone generates the opportunity to re-supply on the parts necessary for shuttle crafts and torpedoes. They also acquire items through trade with other civilizations, and of course they have this nifty little thing called a replicator.
The problem with these isn't the practicality of it, it is the fact that it completely undercuts the dramatic purpose of the show. Why should I care about a bunch of characters who rarely appear to be in real danger and who have a magic ship capable of repairing itself from week to week? While this is somewhat true of the other series, the other shows never made a big deal about being alone at the beginning of the series like Voyager did.
Another frequent complaint is about constant technobabble. Personally, I found the technobabble engaging, it just seems to help me immerse in the notion of 24th century space exploration. Perhaps I have some bias seeing as I’m a pure + applied science student, but there is just something refreshing about routinely hearing “plasma conduit”, “nutrino emissions”, “power matrix”, etc… instead of free-talk or laymen explanations of scientific phenomena. Moreover, the babble adds authenticity to B’Elanna’s status as an engineer, and gives us the impression that these space travellers are intellectually sophisticated, not just some space-bound renegades or something.
The ultimate problem I have with technobabble is that it takes time away from real dialogue. When writers wrote the script they didn't write the technobabble parts, they just wrote [tech] and allowed the science advisor to fill in missing dialogue. There is also stories that if the episode ran short they chose to add a technobabble scene to fill the missing time rather than a character scene which would have been far more interesting to me as a viewer. The odd bit of technobabble is fine, too much causes me to lose interest in the drama.
I will concede she is no Picard though Sisco has nothing on her. Sisco doesn’t possess the kind of conviction you’d expect of a Star Fleet captain, and feels very secondary to the whole Bejor-Kardasia conflict. In fact, the only aspect about him I don’t find to be bland is his relationship with his son, and some of the tribulations he faces in the loss of his wife.
Once again, you are speaking from a position of ignorance. Sisko was poorly characterised during the early years of the show, there is no denying that, in fact Avery Brook wanted off the show and only stayed with it because of his contract. But in later seasons his character is allowed to grow and he becomes far more interesting. There is a reason why we refer to him as
The Sisko.
What personality evolution do you get out of people like O’Brien, Dax, Quark, Diana Troy, etc?
Watch the shows and you will understand why I completely disagree on this point. There is more character evolution for the minor characters on DS9 than there is for the main cast on Voyager.
Oh, and just for kicks, Voyager has the best cast of minor characters. While TNG has Whoopi Goldberg (lol), and DS9 has Nog and O’Brian’s wife, Voyager has a creepy male Vulcan in Vorak, a sociopath beta-zoid, and a stuttering, awkard, but ultimately brilliant man in Barkley.
Off the top of my head...
TNG: Guinan, Barcley, Ro, O'Brien, Keiko, Ogawa, Alexander, Lwaxana, Q.
DS9: Garak, Ziyal, Dukat, Damar, Weyoun, Female Founder, Winn, Martok, Eddington, Nog, Rom, Leeta, Zek, Ishka, Kassidy, Keiko, Molly, Ross, Vic, Morn.
I’ll definitely concede that Voyager has its flaws. For example, there’s one episode where Paris goes at trans-warp speed, but the issue is never explored again, or how the Borg Civil War suddenly had no impact based on the season finale.
And now you know what people mean by lack of continuity.
I grew up watching Bill Shatner act. 
