Pluto should be a planet

First off I would like to note that my first statement was NOT an argument. So you can't call it "weak without support" when it wasn't an argument in the first place. Now without furder ado, I will present my arguments for why Pluto should be a planet.1. Pluto has many characteristics of a planetUnlike small asteroids and comets, pluto has many planet characteristics. Pluto is far from a boring and dead ball of ice, for example, Pluto is large enough to be round. Nearly all asteroids and comets are irregularly shaped but Planets are large enough to have a gravity force strong enough to crush it into a spherical shape. Pluto's gravity is plenty strong to crush it into a sphere. Every other planet in the Solar System is a sphere due to their gravity. Like many planets, pluto also has moons. In fact, pluto has five moons, more than any other terresetrial planets. Pluto also has an atmosphere unlike Mercury. Pluto was discovered to have an atmosphere made of nitrogen with trace amounts of other gasses. Scientists believe Pluto's atmosphere may also have clouds and winds. While pluto may be small, it has characteristics making it a world of it's own.2. Missing information from the Solar System By classifying pluto is "not a planet," we are teaching people that there are only 8 planets. There are worlds past Neptune with Pluto being one of them. By saying pluto isn't a planet, it's like we are giving the image of a limited Solar System with only 8 planets. There are other worlds which we should not dis-include from the solar system. While there are many "planets" in the Kuiper Belt, we can just give these 'planets' another classification of planets instead of counting these as not being planets. If we are to teach in schools about the planets in the solar system, we should just show around 12 planets or so and mention that it's a simplified version of the solar system. This way, we would give the idea that there are many worlds in the Kuiper belt and not give the idea of there being 8 planets or whatever. 3. Does size really matter? Imagine going to a city, there are many buildings. However, there are a few large buildings that outstand all the other buildings. Does this mean we should only say the large buildings are buildings and say that the smaller ones are not buildings? By this logic, we would imply there being 10 buildings in a city when there are many others. Those smaller buildings have the same characteristics of the larger ones, they are just smaller. Also, there are very small stars that exist. Yet we still consider these as stars and not "dwarf stars."This goes the same with Pluto. Pluto has characteristics of a planet and it is a world of it's own, not just some small comet orbiting around the sun. Sourceshttp://www.compoundchem.com...http://www.space.com...http://www.theguardian.com...http://time.com...http://www.space.com...http://www.utsandiego.com...http://www.space.com...http://www.universetoday.com...http://www.uni.edu...ConclusionPluto has many characteristics of a planet and it is large enough to be a sphere. Even though Pluto is small, size should not matter because it has the characteristics of a planet, it's just smaller. We are also removing information and giving a dumbed down idea of the Solar System by the current definition of a planet. These are all some reasons why I believe Pluto should be a planet.