With all due respect, ThinkpadIL , you are entitled to your opinion as to what qualified/qualifies as a toy based on whatever set of criteria (limitations, features or lack thereof, etc ) you see fit. That is absolutely your prerogative, but not everyone will likely agree with your definition of "toy".
However, many of the people who actually bought and used a Commodore 64 during its 1980s heyday certainly had uses for it that went beyond gaming, for example, or what a majority of people would consider use as a "toy" (there are multiple testimonials to this). Was there a huge adoption rate in the business world ? That would be a no, as I am certain you'll agree and the machine was marketed first and foremost to the general public as a computer for the home. That being said, if that is a criterion for determining "toyness", we might as well consider consumer appliances that the general public purchases for home use to be "toys" because the business/commercial/industrial world uses models that best fit its need instead .
Additionally, there were multiple third party, commercially released, peripherals, expansions, software (including productivity like word processors and spreadsheets, in addition to games of course) that likely existed because there was a market for them over the years, unless all the companies that released such products should be considered misguided/delusional for not considering the Commodore 64 as a toy. See https://www.c64-wiki.com/ if you want examples .
So at the end of the day, what is the objective here :
a) try to convince yourself that the Commodore 64 was more than "toy" or that it was one in order to either justify spreading your collecting interests to it or passing it over ?
b) try to convince people that actually used a Commodore 64 in its heyday that they had was a "toy" ?
If you want to discuss a) , you may want to share so more concretely the criteria that you have in mind . If you want to go with b), you are, IMHO, facing an uphill battle .