Look at the clock, you both know who the real winner was.
Most likely your opponent has a better position because he took more time to make his moves. There is a relationship between the quality of the position and the time left on the clock, throwing one out in favor of the other is just naive.
Time, like material, is a resource. Don't get behind in either.
If it looks like you don't even make an attempt to play the board, and are just blindly moving your pieces back and forth in the hope that your opponent will run out of time before you do, then I can see why some people might find that strategy annoying.
Yes, I know, time is part of the game. And the shorter the time control, the more significant the clock becomes. But there is some point where playing for time makes a farce out of the game. Would you enjoy playing against someone who played 1. P-K3, and then just played K-K2 and K-K1 for the rest of the game? Every game? I wouldn't.
The real winner is the one who won the game.
"Moral victories" are for losers.
I don't disagree. But I think it's also important to ask yourself (win or lose) why the winner won. If I beat a player who outplayed me, but their poor blitz skills had them looking for a combination too long and so they lose on time, I consider that a moral victory because it means I have a lot to work on.
Maybe that's not everyone's cup of tea, and maybe one reason my time management was never good (the board was all that really mattered) but IMO it's not good to throw that game in the win pile and forget about it so to speak.
I have had this argument come up a lot, you play someone in a TIMED (usually short) game, and you win on time with horrible position (lets say, you: pawn and king; opponent: 2 knights 4 pawns and king).
Even though I win on time, they always argue: "look at the position, we both know who the real winner was."
what do you think?