How to resolve: Reviewer #1 says remove section X vs. Reviewer #2 says expand section X
What this means to me is that Section X needs to be revised.

Reviewer #1 is pointing out that section X is not well-motivated as it stands -- because they can't figure out it's relation

Reviewer #2 is pointing out that section X is not good enough as it stands -- because it doesn't address relevant issues about X.

Thus, the two are not necessarily opposite. Reviewer #1 is telling you that you need to better explain why X is as state if you want to include it. Reviewer #2 is saying you need to better address what is at stake in X but recognizes X is significant.

When I get this sort of review, I rewrite that section to make very clear why discussing X matters to the paper (thus addressing Reviewer #1) and try to improve and focus my arguments so that it really answers the objections raised related to X (thus addressing Reviewer #2).

I'm in philosophy, so maybe this advice doesn't apply to your field.