What to do with rejected papers in case of conflicting reviews everytime?
You seem confused by the fact that one of the reviewers only suggested minor edits whereas the other was quite against the whole thing. As an editor, I see this all the time -- and typically, it means that I chose the first reviewer poorly and that the second reviewer really knows the field, knows the other methods that are used today, and can compare what's proposed in the paper with what's being used today. The first one may have tangential knowledge of the field, but not enough overview to recognize that the method is not new.

In other words, to avoid a repeat, you do well to think about whether the second reviewer may be correct. If she is, you would do well to figure out what you think what is new about the paper, and whether that is sufficient to justify publication. An experienced co-author or colleague can certainly help you with this, and you should schedule some discussions about this topic before you think about where to re-submit the paper.