Stalemate is not logical to me

Lets keep it respecful guys! No need for disrespect.

My point Its simple

You need to make a move:

If the only move you have is getting your king into the line of fire, you should lose.

I understand the point that stalemate include other situations, but in this case, you should lose, and I think if you put yourself in a situation where you cant make any move you should also lose. But in the stalemated king situation it's obvious

Think about a pin, you cant move that piece because otherwise your king will get captured. when you're in check you have to move it or block it, otherwise your king will get captured.

In the case of a stalemated king, you cant move the king, because if you do your king will get captured. You cant move your king next to mine because my king would capture yours in the next move.

The question is: You have to make a move. You cant pass your turn.

Is it white to move? Because in this case if there was no stalemate it could follow: bishop takes queen, black king has to move, black king gets captured by white bishop or white king.

But the king doesn't have to move. The game ends immediately after bxf7 because insufficient mating material has been reached. The same way the game ends immediately after 3 fold repetition. The obligation to make legal moves only applies when the game has not yet ended. It ends at insufficient mating material, so unless you want to change all those rules too, stalemate being a win contradicts them or ends up inconsistent.

2. The game ends when one sides King is captured (if you insist on not using checkmate).

The game ends in a win if the King is currently in check, and has no legal move to get out of check. So, the King is threated with capture, and cannot avoid capture if you wish (although technically one does not actually capture the king).
Stalemate is when the king is not in check, and so not threatened with capture, but the side has no legal moves (and it is illegal for the king to move into check).

Because the player who made the last move, chose a move that left the opponent with no legal moves, and did not threaten capture with their move, it is the fault of that player that their opponent cannot move. As such, the player with the move does not deserve a win, but a draw.

I fully agree, I was just saying that even according to their logic it didn't make any sense. Even if chess was invented without a checkmate rule and just a king capture/forfeit rule, stalemate would still have to be a draw to be consistent with the other drawing rules. But yes, even without that secondary issue, stalemate being a win would also ruin most of the complexity and logic in chess. The side with 1 pawn left automatically wins. A lone king could win. Piece count would matter more than position.

But according to you, since even a king should be allowed to take an enemy king, this chess game should continue endlessly:

Cause remember, there is no insufficient piece draw in your version!

It could take tens of thousands of moves for a position to be repeated 3 times even with just a king knight and king or a king bishop and king. Even with the 50 move rule, should they have to make 50 random moves just because stalemate positions exist?? A king and 1 minor piece can't even force the enemy king out of the center, let alone to the edge, let alone to the corner for a stalemate to happen, where both players would literally have to cooperate to make it happen (even random moves it would never happen). In this position both pawn moves and captures are possible, but the position is still drawn:

Under normal checkmate rules, this position is dead, no sequence of legal moves by any side could ever result in a mate even if one side tried to help their opponent win. The game is drawn immediately. But according to you, because the king should be treated the same as any other piece, this game should continue endlessly for tens of thousands of moves until one side decides to blunder his king to one of the pawns (which would never happen), with any pawn move by white or black resetting the 50 move rule once again. How does this make any more logical sense than the standard checkmate/dead position rule?

With king vs king stalemate is impossible, but according to you, since both sides should be able to blunder their kings, that game would have to continue for 50 more moves for absolutely no reason.

Well draw by agreement would happen the instant a KBK or KNK position is reached also, since it would be nearly impossible to blunder into stalemate with even random moves.

OK now you are just trolling. For a stalemate to occur, the player would have to deliberately move his king to a corner for no reason, and then move back and forth next to the corner, while letting his opponent bring his king, and knight or bishop, over toward the king, and time it just right so his king is on the correct square to be stalemated on his opponents turn. Both sides would have to deliberately cooperate to get anywhere close to doing it.

Edit: If you are going to try and defend a logical argument, using a meme from VOYAGER of all star trek series is hilarious. As someone who has seen every episode in that series, one could write a 10 page paper on the absurd illogic, hypocrisy, and nonsense on any episode in that show.

Also funny to note how if stalemate was a win a king and rook pawn could lose against a lone king:

LOL!

Yes, people who think stalemate should be a win for either side, they're just silly. Saying something isn't logical when they have no understanding of logic. If anything, if it's a win, it should be a win for the side that can't move, to teach the other side to be more careful.

They might be confused with draughts where you get to lose if you are stalemated

I think it is completely within the power of the person with more material to checkmate. Stalemate is a punishment.