The frequency of major theory change in natural science is rapidly decreasing. Sprenger and Hartmann (2019) claim that this observation can improve the justificatory basis of scientific realism, by way of what can be called a stability argument. By enriching the conceptual basis of Sprenger and Hartmann's argument, this paper shows that stability arguments pose a strong and novel challenge to scientific anti-realists. However, an anti-realist response to this challenge is also proposed. The resulting dialectic establishes a level of meaningful disagreement about the significance of stability arguments for scientific realism, and indicates how the disagreement can ultimately be resolved.