Dubbed anime works for anime that has a non-Japanese setting

The argument

Many anime have Japanese settings and characters, wherein the nuances of Japanese speech would make sense. These shows reach their greatest potentials with their original Japanese audio, and therefore subtitles. However, if the setting of the anime is not strictly Japanese, and the characters are also mostly foreign (as is the case of Cowboy Bebop, Fullmetal Alchemist and Baccano!), English dubbing does not feel out of place. For some people, dubbing is even more preferable because some characters have non-Japanese names, which are practically unrecognizable when said in Japanese. Taking Gangsta as an example, the main character’s name is Worick Arcangelo. Converted into Japanese katakana, this would be ウォリック・アルカンジェロ (Worikku Arukanjero). The English name might not sound as natural in Japanese, and might make more sense for some if the whole show was in English. Conversely, Japanese names translated into English might seem unnatural for some viewers as well, whether it be due to the difference in accentuation and pronunciation, or the first-last name ordering. Therefore, anime that has a Japanese context would be better enjoyed in the subbed versions, and those without would be better enjoyed in dubbed versions.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The criterion misidentifies where the language in an anime comes from. A series set in a non-Japanese world is still a Japanese production: written in Japanese by Japanese writers, performed by Japanese actors, storyboarded and animated to those performances, with mouth movements timed to the original recording. Cowboy Bebop's screenplay is a Japanese screenplay whether the characters are called Spike and Jet or Taro and Hiroshi, and the nuances of Japanese speech the argument values are properties of the writing and the acting, not of the fictional setting. Nothing about a Martian spaceport makes an English recording the original. The naming observation is about transliteration rather than about dubbing. A Western name rendered in katakana sounds unfamiliar to an English speaker — but it sounds the same whether that speaker is reading subtitles or not, so the point gives no reason to prefer a dub. The argument concedes as much in its closing sentence, which notes that Japanese names in English are equally awkward, leaving the observation symmetrical and inert. The rule also misfires at the edges. By this test a Japan-set series with an outstanding English dub should be watched subbed, and a Western-set series with a flat or poorly cast dub should be watched dubbed — recommendations most viewers would reject, because the variable they actually weigh is the quality of the particular dub, which varies enormously between productions and eras. And that points to the deeper problem. Once dub quality is admitted as the operative consideration, the position's content criterion collapses into 'watch whichever performance is better,' which is a claim about production values rather than about setting at all.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Nuance of speech is a property of the writing and performance rather than of the setting: an anime set abroad is still scripted in Japanese, performed by Japanese actors and animated to those line readings, so the original track remains the original wherever the story takes place. [Rejecting P2] The naming observation concerns transliteration, not dubbing — a katakana rendering sounds unfamiliar to an English speaker whether or not subtitles are being read, and the argument concedes the point runs symmetrically. The criterion also misfires at the edges, recommending a subbed viewing of a Japan-set series with an excellent dub and a dubbed viewing of a poor one, when dub quality is the variable viewers actually weigh.