Stalemate on purpose

If you are overwhelmingly winning, then your opponent shouldn't succeed at getting a stalemate and quickly lose. If they did, then it's kind of your own fault for not analyzing the position properly at it would be with any other blunder. And of course if the game is really close, then they are just going for a defensive resource and there is nothing wrong with that. That's just good defending then if it works.
Either way I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. Chess is not about getting a winning position, it's about winning. Your opponent has no moral obligation to make it easier for you at any point in the game

What a strange topic. If you are the better player in a winning position you should avoid stalemate all by your self. It's not the other player's responsibility to make sure you win...

I think the topic should have been peoples thoughts on 'carrying on in a lost position'. I am guessing he maybe ended up stalemate in a winning game and that sparked the more specific question who knows.

Regardless hopefully the feedback from various has shown too many factors to give a straight yes/no answer, and the game I posted illustrates why it is so.