Yeah, watched it a few days ago. Far more interesting than some of the other debates Peterson has been in, the Harris one's are generally pulling teeth and devolve into very esoteric hair splits over epistemology and language gate-keeping (semantics).
A few things I found salient beyond the points that they clearly outright agreed on. Peterson's criticism of Zizek's adherence to Marxism as opposed to standing under his own (and better) brand of Zizekism. Yes Zizek has many times in the past said he is more of a Hegelian, but he always gets back to try to recover Marxism. I don't think he properly lays out it's follies. I think Zizek is right to criticize Peterson for continuing with the cultural-marxism label, which mostly obfuscates the particulars that Peterson is trying to argue against. Zizek says he knows what Peterson means by it, and he himself criticizes those same things rightly. Zizek and Peterson both agree that people operate on behalf of ideas they aren't even fully aware of, and I think because Peterson's terminology names some of the history that influenced that era's thought, it conflicts with getting at the content of those thoughts.
I think Peterson narrows in on a far better modus operandi than Zizek, where Zizek mostly sits in a position of deep pessimist analysis as to why things are fraught. He comes off a lot like a left version of Peter Hitchens in some regards. While Peterson's position starts to feel a bit Kantian in the whole maximize well-being analog, but now it's about maximizing the meta-game that generates well-being. Zizek does counter with saying that it is at the precise point that Peterson arrives at where things can become corrupted. However I find that everything which can be articulate can and will be corrupted or co-opted. I see no reason to throw one's hands up, really we have no choice but to be sincere and run the red-queen's race. Living is ultimately about maintenance, not achieve a sustained nirvana.
I guess with Zizek's philosophy, there is always a argument as to why you are a victim of your environment. Where as Jordan's philosophy, there is always something you could be doing better or different and there is no end to have far you could push your utility given the constrains of a single life-time. Which means under Jordan, there are clear winners and losers based on one's actions, where with Zizek it gives people an out. Even if Zizek wouldn't enjoy people taking advantage of that escape hatch, I think it's a reason he is generally more popular with media channels that try to sell their audience on being right and fine they way they are. Peterson has a ton of fans, but no media channel wants to admonish those that suckle narrative.
At the end of the day I think these two a better for exploring thought together, I don't see a clear winner of the debate. Simply a conversation and understanding as been publicly advanced.