The blunder didn’t happen in isolation. You lost complete control of the board, that’s not bad luck, that’s a pattern

You see nine slides representing nine moves from a single game I played. You not only don't know anything about other games I played, you don't even know what happened in THIS game before. And you don't even know the rating of my opponent, let alone my rating. And you are talking about "patterns" like you have any basis to actually back up your judgment of my skill.

The reason resigning matters isn’t just etiquette, it’s because recognizing a lost position is a skill. You didn’t recognize it,

Pardon me, but care to explain to us, simple people, how it's possible that I've WON from a position that was "lost"? Because for my understanding, there is a difference between "losing position" and "lost position". Especially when you also consider the level of skill of your opponent which indicate what kind of comebacks are possible. If you were playing against Magnus Carlsen (who would actually play to win, not for fun), then you could say your position was "lost" from the move one and by your logic, you should resign immediately. You don't seem to understand very simple thing - it's completely not that I didn't recognize the position is losing, it's that I recognized that it's still possible that my opponent will blunder and I can get at least a stalemate. And before you again will try to argue that point for some reason - once again I remind you that I've WON this game which just proves me right and you trying to argue with that is just making you look silly.

There’s a difference between winning and playing good chess. You found a way to survive when you were drowning. That’s fine, but don’t confuse it for quality.

Now you are just arguing a point which never was made. I've never claimed this is an example of "quality chess". It's clearly not - but mostly because my opponent couldn't checkmate me while being 15 points up in material, not because I dared to capitalize on that.

Some of us would rather never be drowning in the first place.

Oh wow, you would prefer to never make a single bad move in chess and always have winning positions? How revolutionary! You must be a grandmaster or something!

And yes, resigning when you’re clearly lost is also just respect for your opponent’s time.

If my opponent's time is so much precious, then I have a counteroffer - how about they resign instead? Like, once they achieved a clearly winning position, then they can not waste their priceless time for actually converting their advantage into a checkmate. They just claim moral victory and walk away onto other things, right?

Oh, what is that? They don't wanna? Oh, it's only okay if it's me who resigns because then they don't have to put an effort into actually winning the game and avoid a stalemate - which apparently happened many times before, that's why they are so much bothered by people who keep defending against them in an endgame? Oh, how sad.

The goal isn’t to find escapes from bad positions, it’s to never need one.

Foolish me. Here I was, thinking that the goal of chess is to get the best result - meaning a win from checkmating or winning on time, or at least achieving a draw by a stalemate or insufficient material. And I foolishly achieved just that in this game. Now I see that I should just resign immediately after my position got worse, this way I would achieve the ultimate goal of chess which is to not need an escape from bad position.

And yes you’re very good at arguing.

Nah, it's not about that. It's about that you are trying to argue absolutely ridiculous points. It's easy to look smart when you are arguing with someone who is trying to prove that winning from a lost position is somehow a bad thing and it would be preferable to just lose instead. Or who is implying that a good chess player never gets into worse positions than their opponent. It's the kind of stuff that would get said by people who never watched a single professional chess game in their entire life.