As I already said, common logic will do. Try to follow this, ok?
A dollar spent on nintendo or "casual games" -
A) is a dollar which can be spent on games I prefer?
B) is a dollar which can't be spent on games I prefer?
Which is it?
Many people attracted by Nintendo would never bouhgt any games to begin with (the casual crowd). Do you really think someone who bought Just Dance would have bought some of your game-preferences if no Just Dance would have been available?
Your logic is flawed, as the people would buy with the money cinema-tickets, concert-ticket, would go to amusement parks or something like that. They would not spend money on gaming if not because of the style you don't like. So on your list above is missing the point that happens in reality:
C) would have been spend on something not gaming-related in the first-place.
To formulate it as you did: if no casual-gaming is offered, the former buyers of this will
a) spend the money on games you like?
b) spend the money on non-gaming casual stuff?
And don't forget, as the casual crowd started to be interested in gaming in the first place by these games, they might have accidently bought some games you like.
Again you also ignore, that the casual-games that you hate sooooooooo much pay for the development of games you like, that are
a) more expensive to develop
and b) sell a lot less
But I think there is no point in discussing this any more, as you hate gaming you will not accept any logic in the first place. Evidence will not pop up for your bold claims, so this discussion leaves nowhere.