I didn't downvote you, but the appeal of Arch to me is the extreme customization. Sometimes I need to do really funky setups. That said, the stability of debian is also very appealing for the very reasons you stated.

i saw it explained once to someone else that arch is more cutting edge, than bleeding edge. it's not like you're getting beta software or anything with arch - it just updates very frequently. it's a hacker's OS at the end of the day; the culture is that you're buying in to the high ownership/control of your machine, ergo you're going to put a higher effort into at least searching wiki/forums/main page for issues.

you can actually get a very stable system in the same way you would any other OS: install only the packages you can live with. you can install, say, xmonad and no DE and have a slick, solid, low resource dev setup, whereas ubuntu comes with some goofy ubuntu software store that's not removable (or wasn't when i last used it) - one wonders what other "goodies" are in there, esp. after amazon search behavior change. remember that deleted code is debugged code: the more spartan, the less chance for issues. so arch's actually a plus there.

FWIW my boomer parents run arch on 2 different desktops solidly, without much sysadmin work from me other than a few pacman upgrades whenever i remember to VPN back in, perhaps biweekly on average. yes the occasional breakage happens, see above re: website/forum/etc.

debian stable was OK as firefox was fairly regularly updated for vulnerabilities, but the actual version number was lagging a fair bit behind. ubuntu LTS just seemed like a worse debian. ubuntu non-LTS is a non-starter: probably 50% of the dist-upgrades i ran ended up failing and basically needing a clean reinstall for anything not in /home, so it's fairly admin hostile in that sense.