More proof this site is rigged

Losing on purpose is not "get demolished".

I mean thats sandbagging which is considered cheating

I'd say both White players there played reasonable chess. They went for Scholar's Mate - one of the first mating patterns that beginners tend to learn. It's very common for lower-rated players to chase Scholar's Mate at every opportunity they can get.

On the other hand, Black (you) sacrificed the queen for the f2 pawn, for no apparent reason, in both games ...

Black's play looks more unusual to me, there.

It's not rigged. Almost half of my opponents at 900 elo 10+0 are players who play at 80% accuracy or higher, know openings positional play, plan mid/long term etc, and many have played thousands of games too.

When you analyse the games with stockfish or on sites such as lichess, their centipawn loss is lower than 40/50, sometimes even they play as accurate as 20 centipawn loss.

I can tell because I've been 1700/1800 strong at slow Daily chess for years, and these players here at 900 elo play stronger than many 1800 Daily chess players. Which is insane because at such strength in Daily chess you are already playing FIDE rated players at club strength level, and many are using databases etc.

But here some 900 elo, for some reason, can play even stronger than that.

And they are not cheaters, and they are not house bots. I think the problem is there are too many players in this rating range.

why are so many people bashing on OP when he's offering proof that this site is rigged?

Because he did not show any proof.

If it's rigged why do you keep playing here

Of course it’s rigged bro. It’s all part of the facade hiding the real truth, and it’s sinister. Real sinister. They’re into the whole mind control thing dude. When they control mind, they control the money. Chesscom is just another arm of the evil monster. I’m telling you man, we’re all being duped and brought back into the family. Don’t ever go against the family.

Sounds reasonable.

Looking at only part of the history of games to cherry pick a false and unsound conclusion doesn't prove your case. Look at ALL the games in context.

And I stated before I wasn't trying to win a prize or money from lowering my rating. Read the thread. Read the posts so people don't have to repeat.

You missed the point completely. It wasn't the moves, it was the timing of the same line in a row. I could understand that coming up with numerous games in between.

But you've shared that game yourself as a proof. I mean that first where you blunder the queen.

To expose the truth.

Hearing cats meow doesn't prove dogs bark. I was providing proof for something else.

Okay then it's not clear at what game should we look

For what purpose? My statement is about the system which includes ALL games. If you only look at one game, you will never understand the fallacious pairing system this site uses.

Obsessing over one game to prove or disprove is like trying to study one pilot's flying behavior to determine a plane's mechanical status. You have to look at all planes. You have to look at all pilots.

Stop wasting other people´s time by just quitting games with nearly no moves.

Yeah they must be cheating to pick up the queen you hang on move 3 every game lolz

I don't understand why people think anything is rigged if, after a prolonged winning streak, they start losing games? If you are winning all your games, your rating is too low, and you are being paired with people you therefore should beat most times. Then, as your rating increases, you get paired against people closer to your actual strength, and will start losing games. The way ratings get adjusted after each game requires a fair bit of time to "settle" at a reasonable estimate, for both players. You may lose to someone who is under-rated and beat someone who is over-rated, so individual games aren't very informative, but the underlying idea is that you should reach a point where your own rating stabalises, at which point you should expect to only get 1.5 points out of every 3 games (so win/draw or lose/draw roughly equally often).
But for some reason, people seem to think that after having won a bunch of games in a row they should just continually keep on winning game after game? The whole point of the ratings is to pair you with people where that shouldn't happen. By quitting a whole series of games after 1 move is to intentionally drop your rating back down so you can be paired against people with lower ratings, just so you can win a bunch of games against the group of people you've already shown you can beat? That's called "sandbagging", and it is a form of cheating. 
It also could be partly why you find some of these lower rated people do beat you, they're doing what you're doing, and despite the frustration you're experiencing, it hasn't seemed to dawn upon you that what you're doing is in fact contributing the very problem you are complaining about.
Just play your games, and when you get to the point you only win about 50% of the time, then you've reached your appropriate level. And then, work to improve, and see if you can, over time, increase your rating. It will be slow, it will take time, and you will probably not return to a point where you go on massive winning streaks. Those days reflect the time when you were grossly under rated and were being paired against the wrong people.