If your intent is to understand Gil Kalai's arguments, I recommend the following blog post of his: My Argument Against Quantum Computers: An Interview with Katia Moskvitch on Quanta Magazine (and the links therein).
For good measure, I'd also throw in Perpetual Motion of The 21st Century? (especially the comments). You can also see the highlights in My Quantum Debate with Aram Harrow: Timeline, Non-technical Highlights, and Flashbacks I and My Quantum Debate with Aram II. Finally, if you haven't already, see Scott Aaronson's Whether or not God plays dice, I do.
Edit. In response to the comment by @heather, here are some quotes:
First, a brief summary of Kalai's view from his Notices article (see also The Quantum Computer Puzzle @ Notices of the AMS):
Understanding quantum computers in the presence of noise requires consideration of behavior at different scales. In the small scale, standard models of noise from the mid-90s are suitable, and quantum evolutions and states described by them manifest a very low-level computational power. This small-scale behavior has far-reaching consequences for the behavior of noisy quantum systems at larger scales. On the one hand, it does not allow reaching the starting points for quantum fault tolerance and quantum supremacy, making them both impossible at all scales. On the other hand, it leads to novel implicit ways for modeling noise at larger scales and to various predictions on the behavior of noisy quantum systems.
Second, a recent argument for why he thinks classical error correction is possible but quantum error correction is not.
Unlike the repetition/majority mechanism which is supported by very primitive computational power, creating a quantum error correcting code and the easier task of demonstrating quantum supremacy are not likely to be achieved by devices which are very low-level in terms of computational complexity.
(In the above mentioned conversation with Aram Harrow, it is pointed out that if one were to take Kalai's initial arguments directly, then even classical error correction would not possible.)
In the post, Kalai goes on to argue that a primitive quantum computer would not be able to do error correction.
Q: But why can’t you simply create good enough qubits to allow universal quantum circuits with 50 qubits?
A: This will allow very primitive devices (in terms of the asymptotic behavior of computational complexity) to perform superior computation.
Kalai also gave a lecture (YouTube) on why topological quantum computing would not work.