is it correct to resign as a beginner if you’re losing badly?

Yeah, don't worry about etiquette. I never get mad at a new player for playing all the way to mate.

Nah, I wouldn't resign, there have been many times where I played games, blundered a couple of pieces but my opponent did the same as well and I was able to recover the game into a draw. So I would say unless you are losing to a one-checkmate move, finish the game and don't resign....

At 500 elo you can play on almost anything. Once you're around ~1200 elo id say you can start resigning when you're completely lost around then most players will convert it. Good luck

As a beginner, the time to resign is when you can clearly see how YOU would win the position (if the opposing roles were reversed). Once you feel certain that the position contains no more lessons for you to learn, it's a waste of time playing on.

It's a question of "What is your goal as a beginner"?

Is your goal just to beat some other beginner, by waiting for him to blunder?

... then play on, even in hopeless positions.

Or is your goal to learn and improve, and become a strong player?

... then play on UNTIL the position contains no more lessons for you to learn.

Quite frankly, I feel that beating some other beginner should be the LEAST of your concerns.

Also, I think the thing about chess etiquette is for more advanced players. Why should it be bad for a beginner to learn more by playing on?!

Yes, resigning is the correct thing to do. And I strongly disagree with Emily's assertion that "chess etiquette is more for advanced players." Chess etiquette is for everyone, equally. You can always go back over the game to see what you did wrong (and what you did correctly). And, of course, you can always just start another game.

^^^^
This

I might add that beginners are often playing against beginners. None of your opponents should be assumed to know how to finish the game. I've taught many hundreds of young players chess, have watched many thousands of their game. It takes a lot of time before the vast majority can perform even the simplest of checkmates.

If you are playing someone who knows how to checkmate, you are getting a free lesson. Especially if you resist as strenuously as possible.

Play on. It's far more instructive, and will further help your growth as a player. By playing through losing games, you'll strengthen your ability to look for defensive resources in difficult positions - an important skill to hone.

Otherwise, if you resign whenever you're losing, you'll only be training yourself to feel comfortable in winning positions. Whenever faced with a losing position, you'll have trained yourself to do only one thing: to quit. To give up. To run away.

Don't do that.

Fight on until the end, and learn what you can from every game.

You are missing the point.

Knowing when and why to resign is an important part of chess. That's because you aren't playing some faceless entity or an engine; you are actually playing another human being, and as silly as this sounds, it's important to at least try and treat each other with some dignity and respect.

When you play on a queen down, what you are really saying to your opponent (without actually putting it into words) is "I expect you to blunder your queen back at some point." In reality, it's a way of calling someone a noob without actually coming out and saying it.

Nevertheless, I have encountered numerous players who, for whatever reason, refuse to resign despite massive material deficits and, when that happens, I have no choice but to give them what they appear to be asking for: a solid thrashing over the board.

I don't like to do that, but unless they resign, they leave me with little choice.

I'd love to hear what lessons you can learn to improve while a full queen down. Unless there is something like a forced stalemate or a serious time control problem, there is nothing you can learn from such positions.