Note: I am assuming when you say "advisor and co-authors", you mean something like "advisor and external co-authors", and that the full list of authors is you, you advisor, and your external co-authors. If your advisor is not an author on the paper, then that is a different situation, as noted by Arno.
This is a fairly common type of disagreement among co-authors. In my opinion, the main thing here is to have a transparent discussion with everyone where everyone agrees on a way forward -- even though inevitably someone won't get what they want, everyone wants the paper to move forward so unless this is a really extreme case, there will be a reasonable compromise people an agree on. (And, if it is an extreme case, I would argue that it's not your responsibility to handle it, as a masters student).
I think where you want to get to is an open communication between your co-authors and your advisor where they agree to a plan of action. As a masters student, it's not really your responsibility to resolve the conflict on your own. But, you can gently push people in the direction of that outcome.
I would suggest telling your advisor about the arguments of your co-authors, and ask if your advisor would be willing to arrange a meeting (that could be virtual or in person depending on what makes the most sense, but ideally not email) with your co-authors to discuss this section. Hopefully, you advisor will agree and take on the responsibility to run the meeting. Alternatively, they may say that the meeting is a good idea but they want you to run this meeting. If you run it, let each person voice their opinion, and propose a compromise solution. This meeting can be stressful, but go in with some idea of what a reasonable compromise will be, and keep in mind that these disagreements are common and that even if people have strong feelings now, most likely in 6 months everyone will have forgotten the details and will be happy that the paper was published. My experience is that 95% of things that people say they feel strongly about when they are writing comments alone in their room, are actually things they are willing to compromise on when having an in-person meaning. In the remaining 5% of cases where there really is some serious disagreement, it's more productive to have an argument in person instead of by email.
If your advisor says that this meeting is unnecessary and doesn't support it, I would consider that unfortunate since it probably won't go over well with your co-authors, but in this case you can ask your advisor to send an email to your co-authors with their argument to keep the section and with you cc-ed. Then, proceed with what your advisor wants. If you get emails from your co-authors, forward them to your advisor, or respond with them CC-ed.
I'm basing this advice on the idea that (a) all things considered, it's easier as a master student to go along with your advisor and let them take the blame for scientific disagreements, and (b) you don't have a strong feeling about this section. If you did have a strong feeling and disagreed with your advisor, you could also consider trying to win your advisor over to your side.
