The Salzburg Symposium I deals with the question of whether arguing with each other is an indispensable practice of education. The author notes that people have always argued with each other, but it was only in the pedagogical modern era that arguing in education began to be explicitly addressed. In the past, obedience was considered important, so arguing did not play a role in education. It was only with Jean-Jacques Rousseau that arguing was seen as a legitimate practice of education. The author examines various examples from Rousseau's work "Emile or On Education" in which arguing is portrayed as an educational practice. The text is about the importance of arguing in religious education and upbringing. The author argues that arguing should not only take place between different religions, but also between religion, ethics, politics, philosophy, and science. He emphasizes the necessity for children and young people to develop the ability to argue with believers as atheists and with atheists as believers. The text also refers to the pedagogical approaches of Rousseau and Herbart, who emphasized arguing as part of education and promoted the development of independent and ethically-moral judgment. The text deals with the considerations of Herbart and Schleiermacher regarding the importance of arguing in education. Herbart distinguishes various systems such as the justice system, the administrative system, and the cultural system. He emphasizes the importance of arguing in education, but without allowing criticism of the existing social order. Schleiermacher goes a step further and emphasizes the necessity of public arguing to enable changes in society. He also emphasizes the importance of moral disapproval and cooperation in problem-solving. Wilhelm von Humboldt also emphasizes the importance of arguing in civil society. The text discusses the conflict between civil society and the absolutist state. This conflict is not yet resolved in democratic and republican constitutions and must be continued. Civil society is a social space in which people argue about the common good and form opinions. The political in this space is not identical to state politics. Humboldt demands that the constitution of the state be examined in the education of people in order to achieve true improvements. It is emphasized that certain tasks and responsibilities cannot be organized purely in civil society, as this could lead to civil war and terrorism. The Beutelsbach Consensus emphasizes controversy and the prohibition of indoctrination in political education and has been extended to other areas of education. However, it is pointed out that arguing in education must be guided by criteria in order to avoid falling into an indifferent practice of arguing. The text argues that arguing should not be excluded from public education and upbringing. It is emphasized that reasonable differences of opinion should be controversially discussed in education, even if they are not enshrined in a country's constitution. The authors argue that the interpretation and further development of the constitution should not only be left to politics, but must also be discussed in civil society. It is emphasized that arguing in education should not only be a technique, but must be coordinated with other pedagogical forms of action. The authors argue that arguing in education contributes to self-government, broadening horizons, and consultation on the good. The text deals with the importance of arguing in education and advocates for it. [Extracted from the article]