The argument that it would be illogical for stalemate to result in a win (for the stalemating or stalemated player) is based on the fact that the objective of the game is checkmate. Stalemate is not checkmate and therefore it cannot logically be a win for either side. The problem with the argument is that if the rules were different ― if stalemate resulted in a win for either side, the objective of the game would be checkmate or stalemate. Then one could argue that a draw by stalemate would be illogical because of the game's objective.
Having said that, I think it's more than just a matter of personal preference ― unless one's preference is to make the game less challenging and interesting. Stalemate should result in a draw because the game would lose much of its complexity and richness if it resulted in a win. It's as simple as that. Endgame skill would become considerably less important. If stalemate resulted in a win for the stalemating player, any king and pawn vs king endgame would be easily won by a patzer with enough sense to keep his pawn protected. No technique required.
Yes, it is based on the fact that the purpose of the game is to achieve checkmate, and that is the only thing the argument should be based on, from a logical standpoint. Otherwise, the argument simply cannot follow from its premises.
When the game is over, wheter by mate or stalemate, the pieces remaining are irrelevant. The valuation is the same if one side has more pieces left or both are equal. It doesn't change the evaluation. The examples in this thread are therefore irrelevant. A stalemate is a stalemate regardless of pieces remaining.
It is also irrelevant what piece done what when the game has finished. The evaluation doesn't change. Anyone may argue othervise but I would be grateful if words wouldn't be put in my mouth.
Personally I've never denied that the game is over when a stalemate occur. The only thing I've done is argue for the point system suggested by GM Torre. It is a personal preference. Other people have the right to think otherwise. There is however no objective truth as to what the evaluation of various situations on the board should be. There is no way to establish by a logic chain of reasoning that a stalemate must be a valued as a draw. It is a matter of personal preference. As this is the Internet I'd like to point out again that I personally like the suggestion by GM Torre.
UH>...
1. There IS an objective truth concerning those things. It's called chess theory.
2. Yes, you can from first principles and solely from the purpose of the game conclude that stalemate must be a draw. Again, you can change the purposes of the game, but let me repeat myself: ONCE YOU DO THAT, YOU ARE NO LONGER TALKING ABOUT CHESS. Games are defined by their objectives. However, leaving the purpose unchanged, a.k.a actually talking about chess and not some other you subconsciously seem to prefer, you can only conclude the current way of scoring stalemates and nothing else.