I gave up reading at the halfway point because you had already engaged in too many fallacies.

Switch continues the line of Nintendo home consoles and Nintendo handhelds at the same time, that's just how it is. I am willing to provide you with a smackdown for each of your points, if you are interested in getting shown the light.

Here's the response to your first point: The comparison to the GBA and DS is indeed faulty because Switch was never called a third pillar. When the DS launched, we truly had a situation where Nintendo supported GC, GBA and DS in 2005, hence why it was justified that they called the DS a third pillar. If the DS had failed, they could have fallen back on the Game Boy brand as if nothing happened, because the GBA got supported appropriately.

But Switch could never be a third pillar because it was already a given that Wii U support would end as soon as NX launched. You can't have a third pillar when there are only two platforms (Switch and 3DS). After this is established, it's necessary to look at the support that Nintendo's platforms are receiving. The 3DS isn't sitting as pretty as the GBA did. The GBA got more high profile software than the DS in 2005 while the 3DS is without a doubt getting second rate treatment in comparison with Switch.

You have swayed me.

Besides, all I'm suggesting is we not make assumptions. I recall making a similar thread about the possibility of a future console employing something akin to flash memory cards as a medium for games in the future, and some were similarly confident that such a notion was ridiculous.

Alot of people on this site also thought going with game cards instead of discs was likely to happen with Switch (at the time NX). Myself, Rol & Soundwave are just a few i can think of off the top of my head.

That Nintendo never used the term "third pillar" to describe NX/Switch is all anyone needs to know. This term carries weight and therefore it's avoided intentionally when it doesn't get mentioned. I'd actually like to ignore this third pillar thing altogether because it works neither as a pro or a con for your greater claim.

Point 2: Indeed, Nintendo won't leave the handheld market. But since Switch is a hybrid and therefore incorporates handheld needs, Nintendo doesn't need to create a separate 3DS successor to remain in the handheld market. For further evidence, look at the country where handhelds reign supreme; Switch is already being accepted as the 3DS successor.

Point 3: Nintendo had two platforms in the past not because of safety reasons, but because technology required it. Having two separate platforms is the reason why one wouldn't do so well at times, because the split development resources didn't allow for the necessary support. So now that technology doesn't constitute an obstacle anymore, Nintendo moves to a single platform because that's much safer for business. Additionally, it's better to have one successful platform than having one success and one failure on your hands.

Point 4: This is already addressed in the final sentence of my rebuttal to point 3.

Point 5: Switch revisions can solve all of that. The hardware can be shrunk, the price can get lower, the form factor can be changed, all depending on what is deemed necessary. Remember that the 3DS launched with a single model at $250 and didn't serve the prices and form factors of the DS family. Revisions take care of such stuff.

Point 6: There are no laws that forbid games with lower development budgets.

Point 7: You really are an idiot. There's no need for a separate handheld line to sell Switch as a hybrid. The market accepts Switch as a hybrid because it offers all the functionality that is expected from a Nintendo home console. This is your worst point by far and you must have tripped and hit your head on the edge of a table or something. Or maybe you assumed nobody will be reading until that point while at the same time a huge list increases credibility for your argument.

Point 8: Kimishima has commented on this and told investors that Nintendo is always working on new hardware, but there is no separate 3DS successor planned to release anytime soon. This points towards Switch truly being the successor to both the Wii U and 3DS. Also, mainline Pokémon was announced.

Point 9: This goes back to point 3. There's no benefit in splitting development resources.

Point 10: A Nintendo handheld receiving first party support after its successor has already launched is normal. The DS received the exclusive Pokémon Black/White 2 about 15 months after the 3DS had launched (Japanese dates). Also, once again, Switch serves the handheld market, so your entire premise of an exit is wrong.