I have an ARK blog now i guess

The fact that Wildcard actually went ahead and gave money to charity rather than to just make a colorful little logo, like how so many companies do, genuinely brought me a lot of joy. 

I've been hearing arguments about weather or not they did, and just want to hear your opinion on the matter.

TLDR: Dinosaurs had lips. There is no legitimate reason to think they didn't, outside of maybe spinosaurids, which were mainly semi aquatic and very piscivorous.

"Perhaps instead of asking ‘does this animal have lips?’ we should ask why they should not have them." -Mark Witton [link to his post below]

The main "arguments" i see online about this mostly focus on comparing dinosaurs and crocodilians, however this connection makes very little sense, and most people defending that idea nowdays are whiny JW/The Isle/ARK/etc.. simps looking for any crumb of excuse to complain about change to their precious nostalgia-bait beasts.

The only actual paleontology sources for those claims are very few, and come from the kind of people who also think Nanotyrannus (known to just be juvenile Tyrannosaurus) is a valid genus, so, basically, still not the most reliable sources.

It's not even really that hard to understand why liplessness is implausible speculation, and how pop culture is the direct cause as to why people are so defensive about it:

The only modern vertebrates to have exposed teeth do not specifically share a common ancestor, instead, exposed teeth have convergently evolved in fish, crocodilians, and even some cetaceans, all of which are aquatic, and feed primarily on fish (though not even all fish-eating animals have exposed teeth). There is no reason to think that dinosaurs were basally lipless, nor that they would convergently evolve that very specific adaptation (with the exception of spinosaurids), since we know that both dinosaurs and their ancestors were fully terrestrial, and not especially piscivorous (outside of spinosaurids).

The final nail in the coffin is that theropods depicted with their upper teeth showing also most often have teeth that are way too long, as the artists do not take into account the fact that teeth have a tendency to slide out of their sockets during decomposition, making them appear longer than they actually were in life. Basically: All of that is very bias towards making dinosaurs more "monstrous" and ""iconic"", rather than professional and factually accurate.

An example of this in saber-toothed cats

notice how the teeth on the first image have an odd split in color, the darker bit would be inside the socket in life [image source: BoneClones]

The second image is an example of a smilodon drawn with this decomposition quirk in mind. The length of the fangs is true to life, and looks natural. [image source: Gabriel Ugueto]

The third image is an example of a very poorly rendered smilodon, which of course ignores the tooth loosening in favor of making the fangs more cartoonishly monstrous. [Source: REBOR]

The idea of theropods not having lips wasn't actually any more popular than lipped theropods were in media until 1993 and the release of Jurassic Park, in fact, some concept art for the T. rex depic it with proper lips covering all the teeth, like a lizard's (albeit the most popular one shows it snarling, which is unlikely to have been possible, but i'm not sure that was known at the time).

Also note how the main target on those "arguments" always seem to be the same, those being T. rex and other large theropods, very rarely does this kind of talk focus on smaller theropods such as dromaeosaurs, which, oh so conviniently, were properly lipped in the JP franchise, and remain as such in most media.

So, basically: Dinosaurs that do not have beaks should be depicted with lizard-like lips by default because having lips covereing all teeth is the standard for vertebrates, and liplessness, full or partial, a very narrow, very specialised exception.