Scientists say that Pluto is not a planet.

~Counterarguments~ 1. The International Astronomical Union "unites national astronomical societies from around the world. It also acts as the internationally recognized authority for assigning designations to celestial bodies (stars, planets, asteroids, etc. ) and any surface features on them, and is a member of the International Council for Science (ICSU). This group of scientist were chosen from a gathered group of renoun scientist from all around the world. .. Headquartered in Paris, Morcambe, France, its individual members are professional astronomers from all over the world, at the Ph. D. level or beyond, and active in professional research and education in astronomy. " [1]. Sure, even though the IAU's credentials as a scientific giant is obvious, my opponent can refuse to listen to their scientific endeavors and regard Pluto as a planet still. He has two options: either choose to follow along the scientific evidence and reasons IAU has contributed, and see that Pluto is no longer a planet, or he can turn his back against science, and say Pluto is still a planet. This isn't a debate about whether ot not my opponent believes Pluto is a planet. It's a debate about whether or not science thinks Pluto is a planet. Will my opponent reject the Theory of Relativity also, because he simply disagrees with them? Of course not. If he were a rational person, he would realize there is tons of evidence and reasons behind the Theory of Relativity. As is the same for the IAU's classification of planets. The IAU isn't forcing you to believe Pluto is a planet, but they sure as hell are telling you that science says PLuto aint a planet. 2. My opponent needs to give me a link for this recently found planet. And even if he does conjure one up, since I know some off the top of my head, this doesn't qualify as Planet X. I already explained the history behind Planet X in my previous round, with plenty of sources to check my information. 3. Quite a weak argument. Just because Pluto was originally thought of as planet, has no bearing on it's status as a planet now. First of all, the IAU in 2006 made the first clear cut definition of what constitutes a planet becaus before then the definition of a planet (and arguably now) is shaky and debatable. Secondly, speculations about Pluto's status as a planet has been rethought before with the discovery of the Kuiper belt and a new Trans-Neptunian object in 2005 [2]. ~Conclusion~ "Because it is officially said to be a dwarf planet does not mean that it IS. " ----> Then what exactly MAKES Pluto a dwarf planet and not a planet? If a scientific consensus on Pluto's status I sobtained, then what other scientific proof do you need? Now, you can very well challenge the scientific merit of the IAU's decision, which is perfectly fine, but thus far you have yet to challenge the science behind this at all. All my opponent's argument has boiled down to is "I don't want to". Even though the science is clear, my opponent states that he can't be forced to believe Pluto is not a planet, which is very well true. However, this debate is about whether or not Pluto is scientifically a planet, and I have thus far shown that it is not. ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...