Question: Arch or Manjaro?
Reason: Every non-pure Arch spin I have tried has broken eventually. EndeavourOS was the most stable, but I eventually ran into circular upgrade/downgrade dependency hell. Arch already can be a pain, but when someone other than you preconfigured it, you'll be in deep. Arch breakages are usually a trivial task to fix, so long as it's your system, not someone else's. That's actually kinda the point of Arch: to be your system tailored to your needs -- not someone else's. So Arch-spins kinda fly in the face of that. Therefore, the only purpose they serve is easy access to the AUR. Even up to 5 years back, that'd have been a valid argument. But most AUR stuff can be built from source, found in a snap/flatpak package, or downloaded as a ready-to-use Appimage.
However, the fact that you asked means you may wanna start on something that balances friendliness, reliability, and performance. That is Mint (or pure Debian stable branch if you feel bold).
That said, my first Linux was TinyCore. It was when I was first discovering open source OSes (well, Linux and BSDs at any rate). So, for some folk, a more "tinker-ish" first Linux may be desirable if, like me, you want to challenge yourself (my first challenge was obtain the 5 second boot time that was considered elite back then -- and spoiler: I succeeded).
But, yeah, there's no "best" Linux except what's best for you. That said, there are Linuxes that are "best for" specific tasks, like embedded systems, older machines, gaming, performance, user-friendliness, workflow-specific (eg: preconfigured for AV streaming/editing, preconfigured for office, preconfigured for forensics, etc.), OOTB readiness, and so on.
It's easiest to start by asking:
1. Why Linux?
2. What do I ultimately want, vs what do I want to start with, vs what are my realistic expectations?
If you can answer those questions, it's up to reading some documentation, then installing on a free bare metal system (try to avoid VMs, they have too much of a feeling of security, lol).