Stalemate is not logical to me

But then again chess is just a board game. 
"Life is like a game of chess, every decision you make must be plotted to victory." - Joseph Geddry (me) 
Not sure if anyone else made the quote but refer to this quote when you get a draw in surroundment. Although, it's perfectly understandable if you have ADHD which causes issues in chess. Like me because I screw up due to lack of focus.

Obviously, you can't read I didn't say it was checkmate nor was I agreeing it would be a win lol. 
 "If you want to explain WHY this is a stalemate PROPERLY it's because in an actual war the king can slip out and say "I'm out" You may have destroyed both an army and economy but not slayed the king because he can come back with reinforcements. That's why it's stalemate because the war will keep going and going until none is left." 
^ read and be open minded. Image what I'm talking about. 
"The battle was won, but not the war." - Universal quote
To be honest, just have Chatgpt reword it for you so you can understand better.

Also, I know the message wasn't in full clarity, but, I was trying to be creative. I'm aware how a stalemate works but since people CANNOT understand I had to be creative and provide insights on an actual war. I was agreeing with the people imposing the abolishment. However, if you think it's still illogical, I'd suggest you study more. Not just studying chess but real war as well for they connect in certain ways.

This is the flawed premise in every stalemate should be a win thread. No, stalemate does not imply the stalemating side will be able to capture the king next move: All stalemate means is the side has no legal moves at all. That does not imply the king could be taken next move nor that it can move at all.

The side who causes stalemate can be incapable of winning the game, like here. And if you say "well if that side cannot win anyway then it should be a draw" that would imply some stalemates would be a win while others would be a draw, which is a contradiction. This is why stalemate needs to stay a draw, not because of "beautiful endgame play" that results from the rule, but because it being a win would lead to self-contradictions.

This ^ besides my analogies, this was better. 

Though you can utilize painting a bigger picture why it would be a stalemate. Just like my analogies but meh people tend to take things straight forward

Also too tired need sleep

Parties with different positions can get stuck because they're obsessed with the gap between them.

To further explain this, let me show you 4 different stalemating positions, and why people who think stalemate should be a win won't be able to agree on which positions should be a win and which ones should be a draw: (Let's call everyone who thinks stalemate should be a win "X people")

In this positions the stalemate X people will all agree white should win because he can capture the king next move.

In this position, some X people will say black should lose since he has no legal moves, but others will say it should be a draw since white is incapable of winning the game with just a lone king.

In this position, some X people will say white should win for stalemating black, but others will say that as soon as a position with insufficient mating material is reached, the game is immediately drawn, and since both sides are relieved of the obligation to make legal moves once the game is drawn, stalemate is irrelevant as the game is over. The game ended after Bb4 so it doesn't matter that black couldn't make a move, the game is already drawn by insufficient mating material, which takes precedence over stalemate. But some X people will claim insufficient mating material no longer applies if stalemate is a win, because checkmate no longer has to be possible in the first place. There is no way to resolve these 2 arguments as they lead to circular reasoning.

In this position, some X people will claim this stalemate position should be a draw since both sides have no legal moves. However others will claim the last side that moved should win as they stalemated first. Yet another contradiction.

So as you can see, it's not that stalemate should stay a draw since endgames would be less interesting if it was a win, but simply because contradictions would arise if it wasn't a draw. A chess rule should apply to all positions for consistency, but stalemate being a win would lead to inconsistent game results.

I upvote this. also, I don't think this much detail would be needed if people had common sense

I have threads on the insufficient mating material when flagging problem. This site does not implement it correctly.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/draws-declared-by-remaining-mating-material-rather-than-possibility-of-checkmate-is-illogical

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/site-should-use-fide-rules-for-flagging

If white finds himself in this position, based on this site's rule, he shouldn't move the pawn, and just let his time run out, as the site will declare it a draw. It considers the king and knight insufficient mating material, regardless of the pieces the other side has, if the other sides time runs out. Even if there's a forced checkmate possible. White could actually improve his game result from a loss to a draw by deliberately letting his time run out rather than moving and getting mated! How insane is that!!

There are many differences between chess and actual war. In actual war do both armies ever have the exact same number of identical types of troops? Do battlefields always have an 8X8 shape with edges that cannot be crossed? Do opposing armies always move only one unit at a time, then sit still while the enemy moves? If you are willing to accept the unrealistic "illogical" rules of chess in all other instances, why single out only stalemate?

I didn't say stalemate was Illogical I was backing up the fact WHY it would be to help others better understand why it's there. Okay, put it this way, I was telling him from a realistic standpoint so he would use his imagination. Also, I don't wanna be rude but your reply was a little uneducated. You have to actually read to understand. 
In simple terms to help you understand: I was conveying a perspective from real life logic, to encourage usage of imagination, and to help others understand...
"If you want to explain WHY this is a stalemate PROPERLY it's because in an actual war the king can slip out and say "I'm out" You may have destroyed both an army and economy but not slayed the king because he can come back with reinforcements. That's why it's stalemate because the war will keep going and going until none is left. " 
Get it now or do I have to explain things like your 5?

Stalemate is just a rule of an abstract board game. It is neither logical nor illogical, it's just a rule. In the context of ancient warfare it may not make sense, but modern chess is no longer meant to be a simulation of an archaic military battle. It used to a long time ago, when it was created in India, different rules and all, but that is no longer the case. It is an abstract board game now. Saying that stalemate is illogical is like saying that the offside rule in association football is illogical. It is just a rule. If it wasn't there it would be a different game.

This I agree with. Besides my analogies (that no one gets apparently). It was always logical and will forever stay in chess.

I like this rule, but of course it isn't logical. the enemy king would be capture in the next move. There's a lot of situations where you can force your opponent into making a move, geting himself into a worst position. In the whole game you HAVE to make a move, so why in the last move of the game he doesn't have to make a move ? I honestly like this rule, makes the end game much more interesting, but we have to agree it doesnt make any logical sense. One rule that I hate the "perpetual check" rule, but at least I have to admit that "perpetual check" makes logical sense.

Wrong. And this is the fatal flaw is the changing stalemate logic.

All stalemate means is that a side can't move. Not that the king could be captured had he been allowed to make a move. Stop assuming the side who is doing the stalemating is winning:

Should white win this game as well?