Naw, discussion boards are for exactly that. Discussion. Disagreeing should not sever a discussion, nor should a subthread in the original topic. That's what makes discussion boards so widely popular on the internet. I find this a healthy and interesting discussion, personally.

Whether humans are omnivores or herbivores is neither debatable nor controversial. There are subjects debatable and unproven, such as whether UFOs exist or if astrology is actually a real phenomenon, and there are subjects with backing evidence. The difference between cold-blooded and warm-blooded animals, on the other hand, or which animals, by definition, are carnivores, omnivores, or herbivores is irrifutible.

Your treatise comparing herbivores with meat eaters, again, does not leave room for omnivores. Humans possess sharp canines, a feature lacking in herbivores. We do not possess large canines like that of felines because we are not carnivores. You say we do not possess claws though neither do most omnivores. Dolphins certainly don't. We do not possess the stronger stomach acids, as you detailed above, because, again, we are not carnivores. Omnivores, typically, possess even less stomach acids than you suppose, but they're still designed for the OCCASIONAL consumption of meat. Most modern humans eat too much meat, that's where the problem lies. What's more, the consumption of processed meats is destructive (indeed, its virtually carcinogenic) even for animals which subsist solely off meat (i.e., carnivores). Herbivores typically possess eyes on the sides of their head, designed to keep a watchful eye on predators. Whereas omnivores and carnivores possess eyes on the front of their face, which operate as something of binoculars used for hunting. True herbivores do not need eyes designed for focusing, omnivores and carnivores (hunters) do and the evidence is there for all to see. Our brain massess match that of omnivores and carnivorous creatures, NOT herbivores.

I applaud vegetarians (particularly vegans) for their decision to abstain from meat because most of the meat industry worldwide is inhumane. If one wishes to win an argument against eating meat, they must stick to the facts. Humans are omnivores by definition. This is neither debatable, nor unproven. Its a classification which has very clear guidelines, and humans fit the bill. What an aspiring debater against eating meat could do, however, is point out that falicies of the meat industry. One could also conclude that because we are omnivores, we are therefore capable of living without meat. I'm not arguing whether one should eat meat or not -- I'd be a vegetarian if my body could handle it, but I've tried and simply wasted away in the effort -- I'm simply arguing the fact that humans are, by definition, omnivorous animals. Debating otherwise is comparable to trying to win an argument which states humans are cold-blooded animals or humans are amphibians. The vast majority of vegetarians recognise the fact that we are omnivores, but that's not their reason for witholding meat from their diet. Again, I'm not arguing against the eating or abstaining from eating meat. I'm only stating the fact that we're omnivores.