Glitch

Then that means you stalemated your opponent. If it is one player's turn, they are not in check and have no legal moves, then it is stalemate. I only see one stalemate in your archives.

It's not stalemate. Plenty of pawns can move. That's the point I'm trying to get across. This is only when I'm playing the computer btw.

Then it isn't stalemate, you are correct, if the player on the move has legal moves. However, it could still be a draw; all stalemates are draws but not all draws are stalemates.

but is SAID stalemate that is what he is saying

While I won't say that there isn't a bug (even if I think it unlikely) I also can't say the OP thinks claimed draws are actually stalemates.

To expand on what Martin_Stahl is saying, the word "stalemate" in common parlance simply means a "draw," or, more specifically, that two opponents can make no progress against each other (a "mexican standoff").  In chess, the word "stalemate" has a more specific meaning given by Martin, earlier.  Many people unfamiliar with the more specific chessic meaning use the word to refer to all draws and, for the moment, it is not possible to tell whether JDBrundrett is using the more common meaning or the specific chessic meaning.  For example, I have seen people ask why something is a stalemate when it is actually a case of a draw by insufficient material on timeout.  Far more common is people wondering why a position is a stalemate when they have a huge material advantage and are "clearly winning" (having blundered into accidentally stalemating their opponent) because they think of the word "stalemate" more in terms of a fortress position or a position with only kings, neither of which is a stalemate in the chessic sense, but both of which are draws.