Sorry, I misunderstood your point. Yes, the paleologists pushed their conclusions way beyond their evidence, As you say, it could have been both. But it also could have been neither. Unless one has observed the species in its habitat for a long time, proposing mutually exclusive solutions seems senseless. Humans eat Limburger cheese and ramps (smelly wild leeks). What does that prove?
Dentition can tell us much about an animal’s eating habits but not everything. If most of the teeth resemble molars it is pretty obvious the animal was a herbivore. If they resemble canines they ate mostly meat. The black bear is a good example of an omnivore, it has the teeth of a carnivore but also eats berries, honey, apples etc. as well as meat.
I think much of the controversy has to do with the amount of reputation the experts have invested in their theories. Only their pet theories are correct. I noticed the same thing in psychology 101.