As a competitive person (not to say I'm good enough to play competitively, but in general) I tend to fight to the end. I resign when I have no fighting chance (I won't make you chase a king for 10 turns just because).
But, I feel chess is more of a "gentleman's game" (or gentlelady), and in that regard, I think it would be considered better mannered to resign in these situations.
In the end, I don't have a problem with the game going to the end, if I mess up, that's on me, and if I catch my opponent in a blunder end-game, I'll take the chance for a come-back win.
I feel similarly in bullet chess (1|0). I'll be winning or very near to mate, and the other person will just make random moves to time me out.
It's frustrating, but I don't fault the player either. They want to win as bad as I do. They just found an annoying way to do it ll
Especially if your opponent outplays you in the opening or middle game, and you're at a huge disadvantage (like a full queen or worse). I've been running into a lot of people who refuse to resign, then try to find the sharpest possible moves to goad me into making a silly mistake.
I can, of course, just be very careful in those situations and win 99% of the time, it's just bad manners for someone to force the issue like that. I think it's a complete waste of time solely for the purpose of trying to tilt someone or maliciously 'trick' them.
I can't decide whether that behavior deserves a 'thumbs down' or not at the end of the game.