Anime refers specifically to Japanese animation

The argument

Anime is short for animation in Japan and started to be used in the 1970s, though animation itself had started about 70 years prior. The word therefore did not name a new medium so much as mark off a body of work within one that already existed. Animation encompasses many forms of art and media people see today, and anime is a bit different within it — partially because of the art style used, and partially because of the plots. Anime has a higher focus on the emotional side of things, be they relationships or problems, which shapes what its stories are built around rather than merely how they look. The history of anime is rich and over time has been cultivated into an entire culture, with anime conventions and even a term of its own, 'otaku', for people who are obsessed with it. That is a further difference worth noting: the form did not only produce works but produced an identity and a set of gatherings around them. The history of cartoons runs back further and through different media. Cartoons were illustrations before they graduated to television — political comics before kids' shows — so the form arrives at animation carrying a print lineage that anime does not share. Those who love comics and the like are considered geeks, the term now less offensive than it was in previous generations. Both have their own distinctive fans, just as they have their own distinctive book versions and screen versions: comics and manga, cartoons and anime. Each pairing developed alongside the other in its own tradition. They're different categories, with different fans, and different origins.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The term anime, while created directly in relation to Japan's animation industry being on the rise in the 1970's. In truth, there's no special reason behind this except the fact it's a shorter, faster way to say animation. Anime, or アニメ(A–Ni–Me), would be アニメーション (A–Ni–Me–Sho–N), longer, and rather unnecessary when the first is just as understandable and recognizable. It was a term created for its ease, quite like how in English, people will say ASAP instead of 'as soon as possible.' You can use the full version but usually there's no need to do so. When traveling to different regions there's usually a style that's favored. Be it with colors, food, or art. Art in particular stands out. Italian art contains a lot of frescos, paintings done on wet plaster, while European art contains a lot of oil paintings. With time, artwork and their techniques evolved, till animation became another form or art. There are different types of art in the world, belonging to different places, different people, but that does not change the fact that they are art. Much like with animation, they are made in different places by different people and called different things, but they are still considered animation.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise contradicts itself in its first clause. If "anime" is simply the Japanese word for animation, then in Japanese it covers the whole range the argument says it does not, and the distinct art style claimed is a family of conventions rather than a defining property — the medium contains a great deal of work that looks nothing like the styles described. "A stronger focus on emotional content" is an evaluative comparison offered without support, and against a category that includes plenty of serious animated work. [Rejecting P2] Different fandoms and different origins are facts about reception and history rather than about what the things are. Illustration and political cartooning are part of Japan's own visual history too, and the manga-and-comics comparison assumes what is being argued instead of supporting it. [Rejecting C] The conclusion runs two questions together. Whether anime is a distinct tradition within animation — for which the premises give reasonable evidence — is a different question from whether anime is not animation, which is what the position asserts and what its own opening line denies.