Let me expand a bit on Thomas comment.
By its very nature, peer review is a guaranteed item of discussion in all academic discussions. Every author has stories to tell about unfair reviews, reviewers that missed the entire point of the article, reviewers that rejected a paper only to publish something similar themselves, and so on. What is much rarer talked about is that the vast, vast majority of rejected papers are simply not good enough! Indeed, this surely also includes a large percentage of those papers that the authors are sure were handled unfairly.
An important point is the following:
My only argument is that authors believe that their paper is a breakthrough paper and it has a very good contribution.
Clearly, all (ethical) authors believe their paper has merit. Otherwise, one would likely not submit it. It has to be said that the author's own opinion is not a good indicator of the actual qualities of a paper.
Is it possible that reviewers ignore papers? Maybe because the authors are not known or maybe they did not write the paper well?
Somewhere on this site, I have previously listed reasons why a paper can get rejected, but to be honest I think "the authors are not well-known enough" is very low on this list. The second reason ("the paper is not well-written") is more common, but it should be noted that rejecting a badly-written paper is not unfair. It is the responsibility of the authors to make sure that their paper is graspable. However, again, I suspect the majority of papers are well-understood by the reviewers, and just rejected because the reviewers were of the opinion that the contribution was not substantial enough.
So why do papers sometimes get very short, high-level reviews, even if the reviewers read and understood the papers? One possible explanation is that many reviewers follow the golden rule "spend your time on manuscripts that deserve your attention". In practice, a reviewer has finite time to invest into reviews. When receiving (say) 5 papers for review, two being borderline and three being clear-cut rejects, it is an understandable decision to spend more time scrutinising the papers that still have a chance, and only provide high-level feedback on the ones that the reviewer sees as clearly too weak.
Now on to your questions:
How can one be sure that their paper is well treated?
The philosophy I try to communicate to my students is to stop worrying about optimizing manuscripts for peer review and start doing the best research they can. I am convinced that the best way to ensure that your papers are treated well is to write good research papers.
How to write papers that make the reviewers do not throw the paper away.
Make sure that your papers (1) have a clear contribution, which is evident from the abstract and the introduction, (2) are written as clearly as you can, (3) are correct in terms of grammar and spelling (try to have a native-speaker spell-check your manuscripts), and (4) have a compelling and relevant contribution. If Your paper is technically sound but boring as watching grass grow, you are not entitled to complaining that the reviewers did not read the manuscript carefully.