Congratulations, you both know how to use a dictionary and misappropriate definitions in order that nuance is lost. In modern vernacular, especially when discussing the psychology of play, a toy is more than just "something a child plays with", and look at that definition for a moment. Have you ever seen anything more gauche and adorably outdated. For fuck sake, one of you actually quoted Merriam-Websters definition which claims "something that is very small" is a toy. By that definition, a baby carrot is a toy, as is a penny, an elastic band, a pebble, and an ant... depending on what you consider "very small".

It's a sad and pathetic trope on the internet for people to start quoting a "source" rather than make a logical and reasoned argument for their position, it's even more pathetic when the thing they're quoting is a dictionary. For fuck sake, I can quote a dictionary definition right now that states marriage is specifically between "one man and one woman" but something tells me "it's in the dictionary, so nyeh" isn't going to convince any gay marriage advocates is it? You can find a quote to back almost anything you want and we all know how to use Google.

Do either of you have anything that disproves my position that a console is not a toy, and by that I mean something other than a dictionary definition that couldn't also be used to justify both a baby carrot, and a prostitute's mouth as being a toy.

Given that they make games which appeal to people from the youngest to the oldest I think they are very important. No company manages this like Nintendo.

your list does not support the thread title...

The people at nintendo wouldnt...and shouldnt.

Unfortunately language is not always logical, and consequently can not be formed solely from axioms and deduction. Many words, such as toy, have multiple connotations and meanings. One such meaning is something from which an adult finds amusement. This is substantiated by the standardized collection of definitions we call dictionaries. You started a semantic debate, and it is only proper to address a dictionary to substantiate the point that toy in this context, is a proper use of the word. 

What you posted wasn't any better than posting a dictionary definition. You defined multiple terms in the form of a dichotomous key, without any source to substantiate the usage of the widespread word "toy" fitting your standards and only your standards. Because language is not deductively contained, we must use induction (observe how a word is used by poeple) to resolve definitions. 

As for the webster's definition, like I said, words have multiple definitions: 

this was one of them, 

something that an adult buys or uses for enjoyment or entertainment

to me nintendo is probably the main reason why videogames are still seen as kids toys (aka. something that's not worth spending time with if you reach a certain age) and not as a serious form of entertainment art (aka. something that can be worth spending some time with regardless of age) by hudge parts of our soceity. imo we'd be much further down the line in accepting videogames as an artform without nintendo.

Ironically, Nintendo has been the only publisher able to successfuly gather a large audience over the age of 30. 

Nintendo is important. It's just too bad their management is so out of touch with outside Japan.

And by that definition a pair of shoes, a DVD, or an ice cream would qualify as a toy so long as an adult buys them and intends to enjoy them in any capacity. Any student of language would know that a dictionary definition is woefully inadequate in any meaningful or in depth discussion, and quoting a dictionary is no more valid that saying "Bob said so". Dictionaries are written by commitee anyway, and we all know how useless that is, one only needs to look at world governments to see a prime example. It's argumentum ad populum at it's worst, as not only is it popular opinion of the commitee, with compromises destroying all accuracy and integrity of the text, but it's unaccountable at that, as no-one knows who's actually deciding on these definitions. Now, in the context of what we're discussing, the psychology of play, these words carry specific meaning, just like how "dirt" has no meaning in the field of forensic science, but means something to a layperson. It's incredible how little of these detailed meanings make it into the dictionary.

In the discusson present, a toy is something that is played with in deconstructive or constructive play in which there is no structure, goal, or pre-determined purpose. You know that definition is correct, I know that definition is correct; and we both know it without the need of a "source" to quote too. You can argue semantics if you like, but if someone pointed to a table with a 6 inch plastic train, a travel set of monopoly, and a copy of 'Dark Souls' for PS3, on it and said, "Could you pass Daves toy", you'd pick up the train and you know you would, you'd not stop and ask "which one" would you? Any honest person would admit this much; this is because we all know, on a subconcious level what people mean when they say "toy".

Honestly, I've always considered semantic arguments like this to be a sign of intellectual dishonesty, there's no way to disprove what either is saying but deep down we both know who's right, and the reluctance to admit that only makes people seem petty and childish, so I'd rather not push this argument any further because I don't see anyone having the humility to capitulate, (especially on the internet).

One of the big annoyances for me here, especially when it comes to this misuse of the word "toy", is it's used derogatorily, in order to undermine and demine the medium of video games, and the people who play them. It's a god damn insult in other words, so why anyone would choose to perpetuate it seems senseless to me. This is why it's worth correcting, after all, I believe video games to be an artistic medium with just as much legitimacy as film, music, or any classic art. Would you also call a music CD a "toy"? No you wouldn't, and if you say you would, we both know you're lying just to be trite so don't bother.

This topic proves why Nintendo was important in the past, it doesn't say why it's still important today. Not as console manufacturer anyway, when it comes to software they are still important. Especially regarding local multiplayer.

I'd wish NIntendo would come with a really good new franchise that sells well that focusses on local multiplayer. These days developers think that games like Mario Kart  sell well only because they are Mario games, but it's the local multiplayer fun that makes it attractive.