For a personal desktop, I wouldn’t recommend it unless you’re willing to run sid, because while the outdated software collection is no big deal most of the time, it’s a tremendous pain when you really do need a new version of something, and you ultimately just give up and instal the whole thing from source into /usr/local, which in a half-dozen years predictably evolves into a mess.
Running sid is an option, but the amount of fiddly Debian magic you end up needing to learn when it breaks is IME not smaller than the effort of setting up a mostly-unpatched rolling-release like Arch (and I’m sure there are other options). Given that e.g. Arch’s packaging is simple enough it’s no big deal to package even your personal collection of handy scripts (and so the system does not develop funny-looking mold and bits of mystery food all over the place), I don’t really see the point. Just don’t update it when you’re on a deadline.
You can see that my arguments here are to a great extent a matter of preference and personal circumstances, though: do you have a reliable Internet connection for troubleshooting? do you prefer a more solid system that you have to fight and that fails badly but rarely or a less solid one that fails more often but in small ways? does getting locked out of the graphical environment every couple of years count as small?
(Offer not applicable on machines with cursed hardware like nVidia or Broadcom.)
I've been using Debian stable on the desktop exclusively since Etch (around 2007). I strongly recommend it for someone who is always busy and doesn't have time to fiddle around. I run Sid in a schroot for the one package I need which is not in backports (a recent R for RStudio. Reference: http://charles.plessy.org/Debian/debi%C3%A2neries/r-4.1/ ). Debian stable relieves all the pain of the frequent breakage (CUPS) from constant unnecessary upgrades.
personally I recommend debian "rolling testing" (rather than pinning to a specific release name) with security updates from sid. this prevents all but the most subtle bugs from reaching you and you still get the new hotness within a few weeks of sid. there is a release freeze for a few months prior to the each stable release, but I've had no major issues from that.
I switched many years ago. I make heavy use of Flatpaks, which are great, although they have a lot of unlocked potential still. dnf installs regular-old packages, as opposed to Ubuntu, where apt packages now install snap packages.
Debian or Fedora should become the new default recommendation. Debian probably fits better for novices, since Fedora doesn't have non-free packages out of the box.
Debian and Fedora have always been my two recommended distros for people. They are the upstream providers of the packages for most distros, and in the case of Ubuntu it has always been a bad choice.
Even from day one, forking Debian and breaking a bunch of packages as they went off on their own, then years later going oops how do we fix this Daddy Debian? Adding Amazon to their search by default in Unity initially. Creating a new desktop protocol to replace X11 rather than work with the Wayland teams so they could rush to ship their phone that nobody wanted.
Canonical is just a good marketing company. They want to do things their way and screw over as many Linux developers as they can to get their way.
For work, keep in mind that Fedora defaults to SELinux and a firewall. That's is a huge bonus when approaching IT about a switch.