Should we consider Pluto as a planet

The reading and the lecture both discuss whether Pluto should be considered as a planet. The author of the article provides three arguments for why Pluto should be classified as a planet. The lecturer disputes the claims made in the article. He says that most scientists do not agree with these arguments. According to the reading, Pluto has a smaller size compared to those of other planets. The article mentions that some dwarf planets have bigger size. As an example, he says that Eris is heavier than Pluto, but considered a dwarf planet. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that, in fact, Pluto is larger than most of the dwarf planets. Additionally, he points out that comparing planets by their size is pointless. Secondly, the author of the reading mentions that Pluto, in order to be considered as a planet, must have an orbit without external bodies, which Pluto has not. In the article, it is said that Pluto does not face a special criterion — a scattering parameter. The lecturer, however, asserts that a scattering parameter does not depend only on the planet itself; in fact, its star plays a significant role in this characteristic. He goes onto say that Pluto can not be neglected only because of not meeting this criterion. Finally, the author posits that Pluto shares common features with comets. The author contends that it is partially made of ice. That means, if it comes close to the sun, it will form a tail. In addition, Pluto's appearance is oval looking, which is different from other planets in the solar system. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that Pluto has an atmosphere, what makes it different from comets. He notes that it has enough gravity to create types of terrain exclusive to the planets.