Habermas and Arendt defend two contrasting accounts of discussion. While both accounts acknowledge the importance of knowledge as basis of discussion, Habermas emphasizes the aim of reasoned agreement and Arendt focuses on plural interpretative perspectives. I will explore the tension between the two accounts in order to clarify the phenomenon of discussion. In particular, I want to address the question whether the two accounts are incompatible or, rather, focus on different stages or practices of discussion that can be folded into each other.