Stability doesn't only mean "lack of (big) bugs", it also mean that it's dependable: it won't change under you, and what is inside is well understood (including limitations). This require using mature enough software. In any non-trivial piece of software novelty will brings exciting new features but also regressions in some cases. There's an inherent trade-off between freshness and stability in this sense.
Debian stable is made for stability in the full sense, like a Red Hat. If one prefers something more recent, but with more frequent changes, it's fine. Either use a distro with more frequent releases (e.g.: regular Ubuntu or Fedora) or even a rolling one like Arch, of Debian testing (sort of) or unstable. There's room for all of this, it's just different trade-offs.
Lastly, as I've said elsewhere it's possible to mix and match. One rarely needs the latest in all, and it's possible to use stable as a base to avoid problems, and add fresh versions on top for only the software one care about. With the various languages package managers and flatpack/snapd this is becoming very easy. For some it may be a better trade-off than moving to a rolling distro.