Debian has an effective Rolling distribution through testing than can get ahead of Arch.
I wouldn’t call a distro “branch” where maintainers say “don’t use this, it’s not officially supported and may even be insecure” an “effective” distribution. I’d consider it a test bed.
Debian tends to align its release with LTS Kernel and Mesa releases so there have been times the latest stable is running newer versions than Ubuntu
Ubuntu LTS.
Ubuntu’s regular channel releases every 6 months, similar to Fedora or NixOS. That in itself is already a “stable” distro, just not long-time stable (LTS).
So Debian can for a short span of time after release be about as fresh as stable distros which is …kinda obvious? I would not consider a month or so every 2 years to be significant to even mention though, especially if you consider that Debian users aren’t the kind to jump onto a new release early on.
For some the priority to run software that won’t have major bugs, that is what Debian, Ubuntu LTS and RHEL offer.
That’s not the point of those distros at all. The point is to have the same features aswell as bugs for longer periods of time. This is because some functionality the user wants could depend on such bugs/unintended behaviour to be present.
The fact that huge regressions have to be weeded out more carefully before release in LTS is obvious if you know that it’d be expected for those “bugs” to remain present throughout the release’s support window.