I can't say I agree; a debate implying that "both" "sides" of the argument are being covered when really only one side is representative (Schama being more or less representative of revisionists/reactionaries, Zizek not being at all representative of defenders of the Revolution in general or of Robespierre in particular) is rather worse than no debate at all. People who might well be sympathetic to a plausible historical interpretation of Robespierre will almost certainly be turned off by Zizek's representation (which is very similar to Schama's), even if it is a defense. After all, those who listen to Schama do not dislike the Revolution because he does not like it directly, but indirectly, through the skewed "fact" he presents that they believe to be the truth.

After all, if Robespierre is a fanatical mass-murderer (and all the rest), what does it matter if one side of the debate is defending him? Does it make people like fanatical mass-murderers more? For my part, if I believed Zizek's interpretation of Robespierre to be correct--which I most emphatically do not--I probably would not like him much more than Schama does. (Though I would probably still be less of a reactionary bastard.)