"Reading books vs. web surfing" may very well be a great topic to discuss but it provides a false dichotomy and hence not a debate. I am not knocking it, only saying that it doesn't offer a dilemma with two opposites, unless you are setting up two absurd choices one against the other, such as reading a classic book like War and Peace vs. surfing the web for Jeff Bezos' girlfriend's yacht's pictures, when you have time for only one.
Assuming we are picking reasonable alternatives when you have time to kill, assuming we are not comparing a physical copy of a book with a soft copy of the same, on a case-by-case basis, we could a) both read books and surf the web b) only read books c) only surf the web d) neither read nor surf but do something else.
For instance, if you are a Harry Potter fan, you would read the novels, watch the movies and participate in discussions on websites like Reddit or India Forums. That is an argument in favor of "both read and surf". When I am coding and I have a question on C#, I am not going to run to the store or go to Amazon.com to purchase an O'Reilly Media publication on C#. I would surf the web (stackoverflow.com, c-sharpcorner.com, geeksforgeeks.org) or ask ChatGPT. That is an argument in favor of "only surf". Why waste money on a book which may or may not solve your problem when you can surf and find the solution you are looking for?
I am sure you could come up with your own arguments for/against the choices but the fact that we have more than two choices here precludes this from being a debate. In a debate, winning is the goal. There have to be two warring parties, opposing each other, attempting to prove each other wrong without proffering personal experiences and preferences as supporting material to prove a point.
Happy discussing!