If you really think that an answer is "not an answer", you can always vote for it to be deleted, or flag for the moderators to delete it.
However, I think in this case you have misread the situation. It's a bit of a stretch to say that this answer is "void of content or clarification". You asked a question, and the answer points out that an implicit premise of your question is flawed. The answer is specific about which implicit premise is flawed. I haven't read your question carefully, but especially if this flawed premise invalidates the question itself, this is very much an answer. If you need further clarification or convincing that this premise is in fact flawed, you can ask for such in the comments.
On a larger scale, one should be careful when asking a question on MO of the form "I think there's a deficiency in the following paper". Mathematical etiquette suggests that you're probably better off saying "I don't understand the following part of the following paper". After all, if you are sure there is a deficiency, then MO is probably not the place to air it out -- much better to contact the author directly. (Side note: it is an unfortunate reality that sometimes errata are not published even when the author agrees there is a deficiency in their paper. However, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to ask a MO "question" simply to publicize such a deficiency.) On the other hand, if you're not sure there is a deficiency, a question suggesting that there is a deficiency always runs a definite risk of getting egg on your face if it turns out you just misunderstood. Even if it turns out your hunch is correct and there is a deficiency, your "question" might come across as a bit rude.
On the other hand, phrasing a question as "I don't understand the following part of the following paper" not only hedges against the possibility that you really just don't understand, but also has all the same benefits. That is, if it turns out your hunch is correct and there is a deficiency in the paper, it's no less likely that this will in fact be clarified by the discussion on MO, and you will still "get credit" for finding the error in the end.
This is all without even getting to LSpice's cogent observation in the comments to your question that your "question" is in many ways not really a question, and so perhaps not really suitable for MO in the first place.