An article in Révolutions de Paris #209, published July 1793, references a decree that condemns all castles to be demolished. I haven't been able to find anything else on this decree, so I'm doubting its existence. There were several different decrees ordering the demolition of all fortified castles that could be used militarily, so maybe there was some confusion there. Either way, the writer of the article argued very strongly for the demolition of Versailles.

Camille Desmoulins, a prominent journalist, wrote in #19 of his journal Révolutions de France et de Brabant, in April 1790

Let us remember what Cato the elder always said, every time he went to the senate and it was his time to opine. Whatever might be on the agenda, without being bothered by the bell calling him back to it, he said only two words: Delenda est Carthago, I opine that Carthage must be destroyed. I opine that the castle of Versailles must be razed instead of rebuilt[...]

I'm not sure if that was a serious suggestion or not.

The other example I found definitely wasn't, though. It's from the testimony of Georges Grisel, who infiltrated a secret revolutionary movement in 1796. According to him, he questioned the plans of the group, which made them suspicious, and then tried to make himself seem more trustworthy by going even further than they had.

"Citizens, an idea just came to me that I believe to be excellent. If, an hour before the explosion of the insurrection, we had agents who set castles two leagues around Paris on fire, such as Bellevue, Meudon, Trianon, Vincennes, etc., the government would send a part of its forces there as fast as possible [...]".

General Fyon opposed this project, because it would be a true misfortune, he said, a real loss for the nation to destroy the castles spoken of. Citizen Babeuf shared perfectly the opinion of citizen Fyon. My motion fell [...]

This is mostly of interest because of the resistance to the idea. Even when there is a very clear strategic benefit to destroying them, the loss of these castles was too much. I would imagine that the scales would weigh even more in favor of preserving the castles in a situation where the only point to destroying them would be symbolic. There's no mention of support for the motion in Grisel's account, but according to Buonarroti, one of the leaders of this revolutionary conspiracy, there was a plan within the group to bury the enemies of the revolution in the ruins of their own palaces. He didn't specify which palaces they would be buried under, but probably ones of less historical, practical and monetary value than the castles in Versailles.

Still, there were ways of destroying the symbol without destroying the buildings themselves. On July 8 1793, Bertrand Barère presented a plan on behalf of the Committee of Public Safety. He spoke non-specifically about vicious rumors going around, rumors he assumed the National Convention would be familiar with, that the Convention was preserving the castles for some nefarious goals. I would assume that this alleged goal would be a restoration of the monarchy, but that's just speculation. Either way, the proposed solution was to open a school, to "see citizens raised in the hatred of tyranny in the tyrants' own castle". That proposition was approved by the National Convention. Other parts of the castle were later decided to be used as art museums, a public library, and an assembly hall for the locals.

There was also an earlier suggestion that Versailles be sold or rented out, but that went nowhere.