Democrat Debates: Doesn't Debate Imply Disagreement?

Recently I watched a video account of a 25 week premature baby that was saved through the efforts of doctors. This effort was in stark contrast to diabolic rhetoric of the democrats in their "debate" (I put "debate" in quotes because I was under the impression debate implied disagreement.) Instead of disagreement, however, what happened in the democrat debates was a case of collectivist conformity. And one of the cases of collectivist conformity concerned  "reproductive rights" and how abortion was necessary to our planet's health. Population control was of the essence. 
Among other areas of collectivist conformity were what us deplorables, haters, bigots might term hackneyed ad hominems leveled against America: how America is racist, our president is racist, white men are racist. Guns. How guns kill; not the people holding them (unless of course they are white supremacists). Why, how callous are those NRA types who wish to retain their right to bear arms at the cost of all the school children who are coming under fire. (But aren't they after all in gun-free zones?)
Sometimes you just get a far fetched notion, like perhaps, just perhaps these virtuous secular moralists up at the collectivist podium might not actually adore children as they seem to announce---what sometimes gives this far fetched possibility is how these children champions seem to view the little one when he or she just happens to be in a woman's body: it seems then that the democrats' adoration is quite subdued. To put it in another light: imagine if you will the reaction of Mr. Bernie Sanders, perhaps the foremost advocate of controlling the population, on watching the video account of the 25 week old premature. I mean wouldn't he wince at the unfortunate occurrence of adding one more mouth to feed to the world's population? And of course I can imagine the entire democrat stage looking on in a collectivist chagrin to such a tragic climax to what could contribute to the Carbon Footprint.