Stalemate is not logical to me

That's okay, stalemate doesn't like you either.

The rules are perfect. Leave them alone and learn to play by them.

logical, smlogical, just deal with it, its not going to change

I didn't like it either, but it's a good thing because of the extra challenge.

In all my time perusing these forums I have never seen anyone who has a strong rating and therefore a decent understanding of chess calling for stalemate to be considered a win. Could there be a correlation between lack of understanding and calling for rule changes? 🤔

There is a very high correlation, especially with respect to stalemate. Other bad ideas, such as three point for win and one for draw, or switching to 960 are supported by many high-level players, including many GMs.

This guy seems a decent player, even though I disagree with his ideas. https://www.chess.com/member/nathan_palluau

Anyone who forces stalemate when they are losing knows they are a loser. They fought for a more noble loss. But they lost, they are a loser. 

Wrong. If you can force stalemate then you were not losing. I guess you were triggered by your last game, but this is different - you blundered stalemate completely unnecessarily.

Thank you for keeping track. I bet stalemate arguments go further back than that, nay?

Well what if both opponents only have a king, do you agree with stalemate then? 

Have a look here: "Stalemate is a situation in the game of chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal move. The rules of chess provide that when stalemate occurs, the game ends as a draw. During the endgame, stalemate is a resource that can enable the player with the inferior position to draw the game rather than lose. In more complex positions, stalemate is much rarer, usually taking the form of a swindle that succeeds only if the superior side is inattentive. Stalemate is also a common theme in endgame studies and other chess problems.

The outcome of a stalemate was standardized as a draw in the 19th century. Before this standardization, its treatment varied widely, including being deemed a win for the stalemating player, a half-win for that player, or a loss for that player; not being permitted; and resulting in the stalemated player missing a turn. Some regional chess variants have not allowed a player to play a stalemating move. In losing chess, another chess variant, it is typically treated as a win for the stalemated player.

In popular usage, the word stalemate refers to a conflict that has reached an impasse, and in which resolution or further action seems highly difficult or unlikely." Wikipedia.

That´s for the origin. One argument is already given: it holds some very unpleasant or boring endgames still at live.

For all people who think they have to parallelize Chess with war: shure, it is one basic idea that it is a battle and has something to do (or comes from) war. But the following argument is false: that it is not like in a "real" war that I maybe have ten pieces (forces) more then the enemy and could and would easyly kill him but only because he can´t move it is an even situation. Chess is not like in a real "battle" or war. Or have you ever seen in a "real" battle that one puts his tanks at a special place and then waits with his next movement till the enemy made his own move? It´s a game!!! A game has rules! And rules are neither logical nor are they like the real life!

For me, stalemate is just fine. It´s s rule. I have to learn it and to deal with.

King-King is the only tie I agree too, in instinct, yes. 

Yes, because you keep blundering stalemate in completely winning positions. Here is another. 

That's why your rating is so high, my friend. Bad ideas.

OK.