For reference I think (based on an earlier comment of Alex's) that it was this question ...
... or its answers, which was at least one example of the "unnecessary arguing" which @Alex refers to in this answer.
As a moderator I "allowed" that question (about "killing" and "unconditional love") because it seemed to be within the norms of the site, and it was upvoted.
But if that's an example of unnecessary arguing which you'd like to stop somehow, then you could maybe explain here how you see that -- for example ...
- Am I too permissive about allowing (or myself participating in) arguing?
- Is there a specific pattern of posting -- answers, comments, follow-on question -- that I should watch more closely?
- A specific type of content or use of language (I'm already wary of people using the word "you" for example)?
- A specific nuisance user account (though I'm loathe to ask this question because personal dislike if any might be quite problematic especially as a basis for moderation, and is arguably against the Code of Conduct which says, "Focus on the content, not the person")?
- Or is the status quo (i.e. "the way it is now") kind of good enough or "couldn't be better" even if it is imperfect?
... or whatever else you can say.