At first glance, the student and the doctor seem like the perfect quarrel partners, because there doesn't seem to be a lack of areas of conflict: young versus old, financially weak versus wealthy, woman versus man, green versus conservative, East versus West.
However, within the two hours that they speak to each other, there is very often agreement and understanding of each other's position rather than argument.
Philipp Johannssen
Editor on duty at FAZ.NET.
Follow I follow
Amanda Kipke is 22 years old and studies law in Leipzig and is a member of the Green Party.
Matthias Redecker lives in Bruchsal and works as a cardiologist.
He describes himself as a "conservative candidate" and is 63 years old.
Both have signed up for the readers' debate campaign "Germany speaks" in order to exchange ideas with people who see things differently.
They start their conversation with the question of reintroducing conscription.
Redecker, who studied with the Bundeswehr and then worked there for 15 years, is in favour.
However, he wants his answer to be understood differently: "I'm not sure if it would help the Bundeswehr at the moment to have conscripts.
But I am of the opinion that we in Germany should have a general obligation to work again.
A social year, for example.” Law student Kipke is against conscription, even though the war in Ukraine has unsettled her.
She thinks the idea of the social year makes sense, in order to give people an insight into the day-to-day work of nursing, for example.
For Redecker, however, there is more to the question of reintroducing conscription: “Do we want to defend our democracy?” he asks.
For Kipke there is no question that Germany must be able to defend itself in the event of an attack.
She asks the counter question: "Do you think that democracy can only be defended militarily?" War is the last resort, says Redecker.
For him, however, the question also arises: How much deterrence do we need?
“That happened – now anything else can happen”
Redecker cites the use of blue helmet soldiers in Kosovo as an example and what their presence there would have done.
But that is only possible if soldiers are properly equipped and it is clear what the consequences of an aggressor are.
Otherwise you will only be perceived as a development worker and the effect will be lost, says Redecker.
"All or nothing.
Then you can say we're not defending ourselves – but then NATO won't do it for us either.” Kipke agrees with Redecker.
"I'm 22 years old and have never experienced anything other than stability and peace," says the student.
“The Ukraine war is a glaring turning point and has thrown the worldview of many people upside down.
My feeling is: That happened – now everything else can happen.”
With the next question, it is immediately noticeable that Kipke has dealt with the subject more often: "I am absolutely in favor of introducing a speed limit so that we can meet the climate targets." goals and the speed limit is a simple tool to save a lot of emissions, she argues.
"I don't understand why people have to race down the freeway at 180."
But even the cardiologist is apparently not leading this discussion for the first time.
A speed limit would only save a small percentage of gas mileage, he replies.
It would be much better if fewer cruise ships sailed the sea and short-haul flights were reduced.
Kipke does not contradict this, but calls for political incentives: "Train tickets must be cheaper than plane tickets, especially within Germany." "
Kipke finds it right that appeals are made to citizens' personal responsibility.
“If, like vaccination, the aim is to protect society as a whole, then the individual not only vaccinates for himself but also for the other.
I don't understand why it's such a big problem to show solidarity - with vaccination and the climate as well".
For Redecker, a speed limit would be "purely symbolic politics", precisely because German politicians had previously not been able to bring about a general obligation to vaccinate.
A speed limit also provides an alibi to drive more cars.