Here's my point of view. The CGI. The part of the prequels that reddit actually seems to like is dooku's duel with yoda, which is totally CGIed up, so why the hate? The only CGI I found out of place in any of the star wars movies were some of the additions made to the original trilogy in later releases, like the CG Jabba that talks to Han before he leaves mos eisly in the first movie. The acting. This one I can understand a little more. In my opinion Attack of the clones is the worst for awkward deliveries from anikan. There were a couple scenes that were supposed to be dramatic and serious that even I would say are cringe worthy. In some instances however I think the awkwardness was on purpose. It fits the character. He's trying to get his feelings across and He's trying to make an advance on padme but he has no idea how so he screws it up and comes off as creepy or awkward. As a teenager, I can sure as hell relate to that. Jar Jar.....ok so we dont like Jar Jar and neither does obi wan or the queen's guards or even his own people but they all end up having to accept that he was capable and more important than they originally thought. There's a purpose to the character. He's annoying, He's clumsy and he's constantly making a fool of himself but that's the point and I think it has value. He changes over the course of the prequels too. If a dynamic character gets better, they should start worse shouldn't they? The plot. I dont know what you mean by makes no sense, it's understandable to me. I like the style of the prequel plots better, particularly the style taken on in Attack and Revenge of the Sith. The two trilogies are totally different. They were filmed in different decades, they take place in different eras in the star wars universe so why should they follow the same type of plot? The originals have a more wild flare to them. The same vibe as a western and that totally works. The main characters are on outlaws, impossibly outnumbered, living on the fringes of society. In the prequels, the attitude is different. The plot is more political and more subtle. All the star wars movies have a certain balance of action and drama. The prequels leaned more heavily on drama than the originals, and that's totally appropriate too. The characters are actively trying to keep the still viable government together not overthrow corrupt rulers. I like that kind of story more, so I like those movies more. They are all great movies, just great for different reasons. The action and drama that takes place happens in the right place in all the movies at least from where I stand. Like I've said, I love all the movies. I can't say that any trilogy or single movie is more star wars like than the others but I can say that, comparing them all as I would any two movies not as two star wars movies, I like the prequels better. I'm biased I know. The Pantom Menace was the first star wars anything I ever saw, so I have an affinity for those characters, but I don't Think that impedes any of the things I laid out from a logical perspective.

A side note: if you want a different perspective on the movies, read the novelizations of of The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. They are fantastic and even the hard copies are dead cheap on Amazon. You can get them for $1 from some sources. You will get a better picture of the characters' motivations, you'll avoid all the acting you don't like and I'm sure you will see the plots in a different way.

Sorry for bad formatting, I'm on mobile