An argument against AndrewTOYSNHK that I see brought up all the time, but doesn't make sense to m
Something I see brought up all the time in almost every TOYSNHK discussion is that for Andrew to be TOYSNHK, first you have to prove that Andrew is in the games. But that argument just makes no sense.
Let me use an analogy: There is a red apple on a table. The person you are with says that he will only accept that the apple is red, if you can prove that the apple exists... without using the apple. So now, without using the apple itself, you have to prove that that the apple on the table exists.
See how difficult and nonsensical that seems? It's the same thing with Andrew.
Let's just assume that you believe Andrew is TOYSNHK for a minute (this will be easy if you already believe AndrewTOYSNHK): That means that Andrew's one and only appearance in the mainline games is in UCN as TOYSNHK. Now, in a discussion involving AndrewTOYSNHK, someone tells you to prove that Andrew is in the games, and only then will they believe AndrewTOYSNHK. How are you supposed to do that? If Andrew's only appearance is as TOYSNHK, then how are you supposed to prove his existence without using TOYSNHK?
The answer is that you don't have to.
Proof of Andrew's existence shouldn't be, and isn't, a prerequisite for AndrewTOYSNHK. When considering TOYSNHK theories, AndrewTOYSNHK should be treated no differently then any other TOYSNHK theory with characters confirmed to exist in the games. The deciding factory of AndrewTOYSNHK shouldn't be proof of his existence outside of TOYSNHK, it should be whether you find AndrewTOYSNHK's evidence convincing. If you do, Andrew is in the games and is TOYSNHK, if you don't, Andrew isn't in the games and isn't TOYSNHK.
If AndrewTOYSNHK is true, then AndrewGames is true, not the other way around.
This isn't even the first time this has happened either, it happened with Edwin before SOTM was announced.
Before SOTM's first trailers and teasers, many people argued that The Mimic alone wasn't proof of Edwin's existence in the games, and that some other game character had to of been the creator of The Mimic. If you could prove that Edwin existed in the games, then that means he was the creator of The Mimic in the games, but because there was no other indicators other than that at the time, a large amount of people went with the belief that Edwin was just a parallel to another game character that created The Mimic (it was Henry, many people believed Edwin was a Henry parallel).
Then SOTM was announced, and as the trailers came out, it became obvious that Edwin was in the games and was the creator of The Mimic. Now, the only reason that the "EdwinGames debate" ended was because of SOTM, with TOYSNHK, his game came out 8 years ago and the AndrewGames debate hasn't ended. The main reason for that was because of how popular GoldenTOYSNHK is, and the fact that Andrew doesn't have any relevence outside of UCN and The Stitchwraith Stingers, so there was no reason to ever bring him up again. That was until ITPG and RTTP came out, and guess what they showed us? They showed us Andrew, and not only that, doubled down on connecting him to TOYSNHK. However, because many people can't agree on the canonicity of those two, and because they aren't mainline games, people haven't taken it as confirmation.
TLDR: AndrewGames isn't a prerequisite of AndrewTOYSNHK. If AndrewTOYSNHK is true, then AndrewGames is true, not the other way around. The deciding factory of AndrewTOYSNHK shouldn't be proof of his existence outside of TOYSNHK, it should be whether you find AndrewTOYSNHK's evidence convincing on it's own.