The comments on this Politics SE answer are but one of example of how argumentative and caustic people can be to each other specifically on that SE site compared to other SE sites.
I am open to the possibility that nothing needs to change and moderators must simply remain active, especially because there are penalties for users who continually post negatively flagged content (I think… so flagged comments affect this? I think so.)
But I am also open to new strategies to reduce the constant influx of arguing - of using slightly offensive language, personal attacks, and especially, too many comment threads descending into off-topic arguments. I’m sure anyone reading this has witnessed how sometimes people feel so strongly about refuting a certain point they hear that it is not important to them that what they are saying is not relevant to settling the original point of discussion.
Is it technically possible that a Stack Exchange site could require pre-approval of certain content? This happens on some Reddit subreddits, where the content is not even published until a moderator signs off on it.
The moderator could return the content to the poster requesting a revision.
I know this could have its own issues and may not be successfully implementable, but I would like to draw attention to that, in my opinion, the Politics Stack Exchange site has a problem that ideally would be fixed.
Stack Exchange is generally designed to produce better quality content than ordinary forums. But on Politics, the argumentativeness is up to the brim, and it may be very hard for moderators to staunch the flow. I believe we should aspire for something higher.