Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

When did I said the opposite? 

I know very well that in certain positions it is a draw if the defending side simply keeps their king in the corner. 

But even in that case you can not say that the defending side made brilliant moves. In that position any person with a bit of basic endgame knowledge knows how to defend, and it is very very easy to do (Like I said, just keep your king in the corner and that is all). 

My point with all this is that people say that it takes great play from the defending side to achieve a stalemate. And no, that is not the case. 

In the vast majority of cases, the stalemate is impossible if the attacking side makes the proper moves (Regardless of what the defending side plays), and in the remaining cases where in theory it must a draw, the defending side must simply have a little bit of basic endgame knowledge and he will get the draw. 

Never in history have existed one single game where a stalemate happened because the defending side made such amazing moves that the attacking side could do nothing to prevent the stalemate. 

Stalemates happen exclusively because 

A) Attacking side made a huge mistake

B) The defending side has very very basic endgame knowledge. 

That is incorrect. There are some very nice examples of one side forcing the issue by sacrificing material to get into a forced stalemate (or a regular draw if the material is not taken). I think there are some in this topic even. Not going to say it wasn't allowed due to a mistake but not all stalemates are due to trivial mistakes or basic endgames that draws because of stalemate.

Ok, show me examples please. 

Says the new poster?

Oh, wait, you're probably a sockpuppet yourself, and know 2Q1C's modus operandi quite well.  Well, carry on the meandering and pointless subterfuges, then ...

The worst part is that 2Q has been here for many years. 

Any normal person would get tired of trolling after few months, yet this dude has been here for several years doing exactly the same thing. I really pitty him. 

Post 162 has a couple. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stalemate-is-the-most-senseless-rule-ever?page=9

I've had at least one similar example in an OTB casual game that I specifically recall and likely have had more.

 Why would anyone assume stalemate can only happen if the stronger side blunders? That's nonsense talk, gibberish. Now, checkmate requires some serious error along the way.

I could, if I cared.  As it is, I just wait for them to be discovered and banned without worrying about it.  Now if chess.com would go after other trolls the same way, we'd be getting somewhere...

Yes, but you are still too young to understand it. 

Ok those were good examples. Maybe I exaggerated a little bit with "There is no one game in history...", but the fact is that those examples are huge exceptions. They are the 0.5%. 

The 99.5% of stalemates are because of some blunder or because the defending side knows basic endgames. 

Regular stalemates are likely less than 1% of games; not including games that are draws because they would end up as stalemate by keeping material. If you include those, the percentage is a lot higher. Then, of course, draws probably average 30% of master games and 5-10% of amateur games.

 Because the game can't continue. To win, u have to ATTACK the king, not just trap.

I agree.

The object of the game is to kill the king and not allow the king to survive.  If you trap the king but not attack it the king has escaped and it is a draw.

You must make-up your mind: either the King is trapped either escaped.

The object of the game is NOT to kill the King, otherwise you would be obliged to capture it.

This is the most awesome stalemate I have ever seen! Made better because I was the one who implemented it! I have changed my opponents name so as not to cause him further embarrassment.

I think the stalemate rule is a good one.  That you could capture your opponent's stalemated king on the next move is irrelevant because there is no next move; the game is over.  If your opponent has no legal move, the game ends.  If he is in check, you win; if not, the game is drawn.  If you had a won position but blundered into stalemate, that's not a reason to change the rules of chess; it's a reason to improve your skill.

What if BOTH players are in stalemate Simultaneously? Then what?

If neither side can move when it's their turn, the player who's turn it is would be in stalemate. So if it's white's turn, white is in stalemate, and if it's black's turn, black is in stalemate. Either way, the result would be the same - a draw.

It is possible of course and the outcome will be as per what Robhad has explained, but I wonder if such scenarios have actually come up in practice (not from compositions of diagrams).