Why stalemate should be a win.

No, it clearly isn't. It is logically a forfeit for the player whose turn it is to move and is not doing so, and will never do so. This would inevitably lead to a time forfeit for that player anyway, in the absense of the illogical "stalemate = draw" rule.

I'm happy with the stalemate rule exactly as it is.

Stalemate cannot be a win, for god sake!

Reason 1: If a stalemate turns into a win by the stalemating side, all the drawning tactics would have to be changed. Stalemating is a drawning tactic, just as perpetual check is. Perpetual check should win, too?

Reason 2: Comparing chess to real war is just pointless. Chess is a game based on his own rules (Unless you think that Queens are stronger than Knights)

Reason 3: If you're a cautious player, stalemates won't happen by accident. If your opponent was capable of stalemating himself and you couldn't avoid it, you should praise him for drawning in a worse position.

Reason 4: High level players won't play it out if there is no possibility of stalemating. Low level players that plays lost positions most of the times don't even remember about stalemating. They play "hope chess" hoping for you to blunder.

Reason 5: Just stop being finicky and finish your games ASAP. The rule in chess is clear: You must capture your opponent's king to win, and stalemating is not capturing. Also, your opponent have the right to play the game as much as he wants.

Extra: "But if I resign, then it's a draw, because you didn't checkmate my king". NOT! If you're playing anything with anyone, and your opponent abandon the game, you win. Pretty simple.

I have not read any posts here...because there is no logical reason to justify this position.

Not only can it be, but it was, in most of the world for most of the history of chess. Also, a person who is not moving when it's their turn, and will never move, logically forfeits the game anyway (they will run out of time, obviously), thus a forfeit-based loss for the player who has no legal moves is the only logical result.

None of your "Reasons 1-4" are relevant. The point of contention is the logic of the current stalemate rule. The impact of the rule or lack thereof on how the game is played is a different, irrelevant discussion.

Reason 5: Just stop being finicky and finish your games ASAP. The rule in chess is clear: You must capture your opponent's king to win, [or your opponent must forfeit] and stalemating is not capturing [but it is logically a case of forfeiting]. Also, your opponent have the right to play the game as much as he wants.

Partially fixed.

Extra: "But if I resign, then it's a draw, because you didn't checkmate my king". NOT! If you're playing anything with anyone, and your opponent abandon the game, you win. Pretty simple.

A stalemated opponent has effectively abandoned the game, given that it is his turn and he will never make a legal move. Logically, it is a blatant/obvious case of forfeit.

Because an arbitrary and internally inconsistent rule says so. It is analogous to a plot hole in a work of fiction.

Making stalemate a win would make the game much poorer.

That's debatable, but irrelevant to this particular debate.

Neither debateable nor irrelevant. Removes endgame complexity. I don't think you'd find any decent player saying it makes the game richer. Just poor ones who fall into stalemates by accident.

Making a game worse because you believe it's more logical is stupid.

And it shows insufficient understanding of the term "logic".

Not all games are played with clocks so the natural conclusion to a non-clock game that reaches stalemate would then either be for the stalemated player to resign or for the chessboard to just sit there in that position forever because he can't make a legal move.

Clocks are not a part of chess rules, only tournament or match rules that use them.

First of all, you would have to prove, with math, that the net result would be less complexity. Second, even if you do prove such a thing, the idea that less complexity = "much poorer" is a matter of opinion, not a fact. So that refutes your "neither debatable" claim. As for irrelevance; the point of contention is the logic / internal consistency of the rule, and opinions regarding whether the game would be "much poorer" or not in the event of a rule change, are irrelevant by definition, as they have no bearing whatsoever on the logic / internal consistency of the rule. Your "nor irrelevant" claim is also refuted.

I don't think you'd find any decent player saying it makes the game richer. Just poor ones who fall into stalemates by accident.

Irrelevant. See above. 

Making a game worse because you believe it's more logical is stupid.

Also an irrelevant opinion.

A lot of text, not much substance. You're a bore.

I don't have to prove anything. Anyone with basic understanding knows it.

The chess rules are not inconsistent. Inconsisteny would mean a contradiction in the chess rules. No contradiction has been detected so far. Just some diffuse feelings of contradiction.

Your baseless assertion is dismissed. Not only is it a baseless assertion, but it was a reply to an already refuted post (see above).

In the case of playing without clocks, the natural conclusion is that one player whose turn it is to move is sitting there not making a move, and will never move, which is a clearcut case of effectively abandoning the game. The concept of claiming a win by default in the case of game abandonment (i.e., the concept of forfeit) is pretty universal; no one needs a specific rule to figure that out. Many games don't have specific rules for the event of game abandonment, because the result is obvious (i.e., loss by forfeit).

If you can supply me with the phone number of whoever is in charge of the rules at FIDE, I can call him for you and tell him to correct the stalemate rule.

I've already established otherwise in previous posts, and your mere gainsaying is not an argument.

Your tacit concession on the matter is noted.

I don't care if the rule is changed or not.

You don't care how it impacts the game or if the rule is changed.

Doesn't it seem a bit pointless to you then? If you want to play stalemate is a win you can.

So you stalemate your opponent and declare it a win despite the fact that no rule of chess allows for a win being claimed when the king is not in check, except again tournament rules rather than chess rules that force adjudications and all that malarkey.