BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ID cards will allow the police more quickly to identify suspects and people they arrest.

Terrorists and criminals are known to use false and multiple identities to disguise their activities, avoid detection and ‘launder’ money. The ‘biographical footprint’ check will make it extremely difficult to register with the National Identity Scheme under a false identity, and the scheme will not allow people to register more than once as their biometric data would be detected. While the National Identity Scheme cannot prevent terrorism, it can make it far more difficult for terrorists to conceal their identity. The scheme will help the security services in their investigations into organised crime and terrorist activities and help protect the UK against threats to national security. The National Identity Scheme can also be used by the police and security services for identification. For example, any fingerprints found at the scene of a crime (including unsolved crimes) that do not match existing police records could be identified by searching for a match in the biometric data held on the National Identity Register (NIR). This will greatly speed up investigations and may even lead to the identification of people involved in previously unsolved crimes.
ID cards will lead to increased discrimination

Without getting into the whole 'racial profiling' debate perhaps the reason they are stopped is becuase they are more likely to commit crime? Christians aren't blowing up discos, Muslims are. Doesn't it make sense to allocate scarce resources on trying to catch the people behind the crimes rather on some misguided sense of fair play? Discrimination inevitably takes place already. Young black males have for a long time been more likely to be stopped and searched. They are also more likely to be carrying knives or guns than other communities. There is no reason to think ID cards will have any extra effect. Besides, if our police are racist, we should address the root cause of this problem rather than do away with any measures (like ID cards) that draw attention to it.
They will provide a secure way of applying for financial products and making financial transactions, including those made over the internet

As with the response to the claim that ID cards will help prevent ID theft, this is the responsibility of those people applying for financial products, and they can choose to hold secure ID. It is not an argument for the compulsory card that is planned. The government has never explained how it intends 'digital signatures' to work, and the concept has been dropped and re-introduced several times - usually when there's been some scare about the internet. In reality, there is little that an ID card could do to prevent anything other than the most trivial 'card not present' crime. And a state-controlled compulsory ID system is going to be so lumbering that criminals will always be ahead of the game.
ID Cards will not protect us from terrorism and crime!

The men responsible for the Madrids bombings all carried valid ID cards. Those who murdered fifty-two innocent people in London on the 7th July 2005 made an attempt to save their identities; they wanted to hide their intent. Even the Home Secretary who pioneerd this sceme, David Blunkett, has admitted that ID cards will not stop a determined terrorist. The proposed mechanism to 'stop terrorism' through the use of ID cards is obscure and illogical - not that dissimilar to that which suggests that increased surveillance will decrease crime, yet British crime rates remain rather high as compared to our European counterparts, who are not photographed quite so often on a daily basis. The idea that ID cards and a biometric database are a reliable means of storing data is completely flawed - nothing is "forgery-proof", as criminal organisations will so kindly demonstrate once the cards are inevitably issued. Once a means of forgery has been developed, the cards will be rendered an expensive and entirely useless exercise in data collection, and a prospective 'terrorist' may change his identity at will. It is also worth noting that many people hold dual identities for entirely innocuous reasons - women who keep their maiden names for business purposes, for example, or perhaps transgender individuals, both of whom are living within the law. ID cards will only serve to render these people as 'suspicious' individuals. As for monitoring football hooligans more efficiently, the purpose of passports is to serve as a travel document, and a highly expensive ID card operation does not seem to be a method of improving upon this efficiently.
It will make it easier to travel in Europe

It will be no easier to travel within Europe than with a passport which you already have. Your ID would still need to be checked, whether by card or passport - and most border checkpoints are set up for passports. Unless checks are to be completely automated (which would be wide open to abuse) it is highly unlikely you'll spend any less time doing them. Also, international tests have shown that the different types of microchips now embedded in many countries' travel documents can interfere with each other. The chip in the ID card will be of a similar type. If this happens, or if your chip stops working for any reason, you are likely to be delayed by further checks that may take even longer than now .
We need the freedom to retain our identity.

How many more ways can the government think of for us to identify ourselves. Next it'll be the compulsary chip so they can track us as well. For one, I'm sick of being asked for 'proof of ID' surely the fact I'm stood there will prove I exsist? Passports, driving licences, young scots card, proof of age cards, student cards, bus passes - I have never seen so many pictures of myself in my wallet. Lets not forget birthcertificates, marriage certificates and names sprawled all over credit cards. How on earth is this a free country? I dread the day anybody's bag gets stolen and they are unable to do anything until they can actually prove that they actually are who, and what, they 'claim' to be.
ID cards will lead to increased discrimination

Research in Europe shows that in countries where ID cards exist, people from ethnic minorities are much more likely to stopped by police and asked to produce their card. Discrimination inevitably takes place already. Young black/brown males have for a long time been more likely to be stopped and searched. They are also more likely to be carrying knives or guns than other communities.- self-fulfilling prophecy? ;Do you have statistical facts to purport that last statement or is it simply your misguided prejudice? There is no reason to think ID cards will have any extra effect on people like you. And that is exactly what the problem is. The fact that discrimination occurs is no reason to encourage it. You could then argue along the same lines that murders/robberies/rapes occur anyway so we should take measures that encourage/escalate these crimes? B.S And what is the root cause; if not discrimination? we already have people stealing British passports; identity cards will inevitably also be stolen.
It will turn into another expensive IT fiasco

The government in general and the Home Office in particular, have an appalling track record when it comes to large-scale IT projects. New systems at the Post Office, Passport Office, Probation Service, Police Service, Courts Service and Child Support Agency have all run massively over budget. The ID cards scheme would be the most ambitious and expensive public sector IT project ever undertaken. It has all the hallmarks of a disaster waiting to happen: no-one has spelt out what the cards are for and how they will achieve their objectives; it has been proposed in response to political events (notably 9/11) rather than a sober assessment of costs and benefits; building the system is complex and massively expensive; the cost estimates are vague and incomplete; and the project is reliant on new and untested technology
The UK is not that liberal a society and will adapt to ID cards

The opposing arguement takes a very unsubstantiated arguement. Firstly, Churchill regretfully introduced I.D cards during World War II and after the war ended, there were huge complaints from citizens about carrying them in peace time. In 1950, Clarence Henry Wilcock, a dry cleaner and member of the liberal party was stopped and asked to present his I.D card, whereupon he refused and stated that as a liberal, he was opposed to them. The resulting court case of Wilcock vs Muckle, Lord Goddard spoke out against I.D cards, claiming that they "tend to make people resentful of the acts of the police". These events influenced the decision to scrap I.D cards in 1952. We should learn from Goddard's jurisprudence and realise that I.D cards have no place in our society as they drive a wedge between the nation and state, they will create greater resentment among discriminated Muslim communities.
We do not have a written constitution

We might not have a written constitution but the checks and balances we have in place will ensure the government is held to account. There is a real risk of 'function creep' with every power vested in government. With a sufficient majority, government could pass all sorts of insidious bills; the reason we don't do away with government altogether is that a) their passing insidious bills is unlikely, especially given the checks and balances in place, and b) the advantages of having government far outweigh the risks. This is the approach we should take to ID cards - saying that a future government 'could' use them against the population isn't a strong enough argument. Incidentally, what were the 36 additional purposes? Does the Bill allow the Home Secretary i) to widen the scope of data collection or ii) to widen this scope and introduce new restrictions based on this new data? If it's just the former, this doesn't seem much to worry about.
ID cards will help to confirm your eligibility for public services and benefits – and reduce fraud relating to these services and benefits

The National Identity Scheme will provide an easy and reliable way for people to prove their identity and thereby their entitlement to services and benefits. The systems that deliver services and benefits are currently open to abuse and the Department for Work and Pensions estimates that between £20 million and £50 million of identity-related benefit fraud is committed each year in the UK. Fraud on this scale takes resources away from those most in need and is unfair to the millions of honest citizens who fund these services and benefits through tax and National Insurance payments. The ID card will eventually replace the range of documents currently used for this purpose, making life simpler both for claimants and those responsible for checking their claims.
The UK is not that liberal a society and will adapt to ID cards

Existing arguments made by the anti ID card lobby often revolve around the idea that conventionally the UK is a broadly libitarian society and it's citizens are not used to the idea of being challenged to prove their identity. This is false and based on a false national consciousness about how autonomous our society actually is. From 1940 to 1952 all citizens carried ID cards without a murmur of complaint. In spite of the initial protest, the poll tax has created the largest publicly accessible register of who lives where in the UK. The UK was the first country to introduce a comprehensive system of car registration and still requires people to register for licences to own television set. In short the state in the UK intrudes and regulates peoples lives all the time without much public backlash. It is quite possible that after an initial period of malcontent, the citizenry of the UK will simply view the ID cards as another piece of administration that the state requires from them. People will adapt to them.
We do not have a written constitution

This means the government can get away with expanding the uses of the card and lowering the safeguards on data sharing. The relationship between the state and the citizen is not properly defined in law. Every other country that has a system of compulsory identity cards also has a written constitution. We will be passing a law on the understanding that this government will not use the system to spy on its citizens or restrict civil liberties – even if that were is true, can we be so trusting of future governments? The identity register will hold only basic details, but it will include a record of every time the individual uses the card, quickly building up an accurate picture of our lives which will be available to the government in a range of circumstances. This means that a future government could easily use the scheme to monitor individuals or specific groups, and restrict their entitlement to services. The Bill also allows the Home Secretary to expand the scope of the register by order. This is open to abuse. When ID cards were introduced in 1939 it was for 3 stated purposes: conscription, national security and rationing. By 1950, an audit found that this had expanded to 39 stated purposes. The risk of ‘function creep’ is very real
Many refugees are highly educated people who can contribute to our societies

There are those who consider that the influx of thousands of refugees means that the citizens of the developed country will lose their jobs. Many insist that it's difficult as it is to find employment and with the arrival of thousands of people who will need jobs and to send their children to school, the system will be affected and there will be an even need for more teachers and more jobs. It is the belief of many in many developed countries that there are already big problems with employment and good teachers in classrooms to cover the needs of the country as it is and that refugees will be hired for jobs that many citizens could have themselves.
It's what our country was built on

There are those who believe that allowing people from other countries that have been war-torn or who have been affected by violence will essentially be bringing in that violence and those issues into their countries. They insist that people from countries where perhaps women are unappreciated or even beaten or abused will treat people from the new country in the same way. Many believe that the problems of the refugee's home country are a part of the nation as a whole and they are afraid of changing the safe society and culture that they are a part of. They believe that many refugees are unable to integrate fully into a culture because of their lack of accepting customs and culture of the new country. There have been situations where things have happened due to some refugees not respecting the customs of the new country or still behaving as if they were in their own country and of course, these instances have stuck in the minds of many people who may have decided that refugees make a country unsafe. It's a complex subject that may be difficult to define. What do you think about developing countries accepting refugees? Are you for or against? Do you think it's the wise thing to do or do you consider it unsafe?
Nations that are affluent tend to experience a statistical deficiency in technical hands/prowess

It is a well-researched and statistical facts that immigrant populations in affluent western countries tend to be significantly more scientific as a fraction as their population than their local-for-longer surrogates. Arab countries offer an example of moneyed nations in the world suffering because they do not take in immigrants. People flock to Arab countries in hordes of thousands to work there for sky-rocketing incomes expect now the Arab leadership is trying to exclude foriegners and create greater/mass opportunities for locals alone. since local Arabs are not very educated or tech-savvy this has been a counterproductive move a prominent recent example being the state of Egyptian economic affairs.(Egypt qualifies as Arab even though it's in North Africa). America is the prime example for which successful immigration policies has brought in throngs of educated and skillful immigrants pushing the limits of the American dream to infinity and beyond. Counterargument: The U.S has successful 'legal' immigration policies. Illegal immigration across the border into Mexico is an issue that is centered on border-control inefficiency rather than faulty immigration rules. Illegals do not abide by nor contend to the rules; well, because they're “illegal immigrants”, hello?
We have so much, we should give to those who don't

One of the primary arguments when it comes to this question or topic is if we have so much, why can't we give to those who have gone through inexplicable horrors and problems and who have less? It's a valid argument in that many 1st world countries have stable systems and resources to help many of these people, although not all. It is many people's opinion that in developed countries, people live relatively peaceful lives and while there may be people who struggle to make ends meet, there aren't very many people experiencing what refugees may be experiencing in their home countries: running from bombs, hunger, fear, being separated from family, and injuries. Many believe that we have enough housing, tax payer money, and ability to provide safe homes and opportunity for refugees.
Many refugees are highly educated people who can contribute to our societies

People who are for the argument of developed countries allowing refugees are of the opinion that refugees actually contribute to societies and help the economy. They believe that the children whose lives are saved will grow up to be functional citizens of the country who can give back. Many people offer the point that many refugees coming in have degrees from their home countries, such as doctors, teachers, or engineers. It is this observation that insists that refugees will in fact bring something to the table when they are allowed into developing countries. Another argument is that many refugees are young enough to be able to provide years of employment and working which will bring more revenue and help the economy in the developed country.
It is our moral duty to give to the less-fortunate

Many people in developed countries believe that as those who are more fortunate-who have been blessed to live in a safe country that isn't going through a civil war or extreme poverty-they have a duty to help those who are in dire situations. This argument is approached from the perspective of basic humanity: if there are people whose lives have been torn apart with their homes being bombed, family members dying, and facing hunger on a daily basis, how can we ignore them and not do our part to help them?
It's what our country was built on

While this argument is specific to the U.S., it may ring for other developed countries' values. The U.S. was built on the idea of freedom of speech, helping those who want freedom and justice for all, and as it says on the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor…" and is a big reason why many Americans want to open their doors to accept more refugees. Many argue that the majority of Americans are children of immigrants and refugees themselves and that if it wasn't for their families being allowed to make a new life in the U.S. than they wouldn't even be here themselves. It's that deep belief that this is what America is about that has many Americans wanting to allow refugees-especially from Syria-to move to the United States to live safe and protected lives.
Cost

This does not have much to do with whether Truman was right to drop the atom bomb. Who is the demonstration for? If the Japanese then no demonstration was going to help, but then the firebombing caused much more damage than the A bomb so the Japanese did not consider the bomb much different (at least not until sometime later when the problems of radiation became better known and understood). The Russians? well a demonstration would have had as much impact upon them as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they were not the target. How would it be a waste to try a demonstration? If they surrender then you have saved lives, if they dont then you use the other. Remember there were two bombs, if it is going to have an impact one should be as good as two. The second is therefore redundant anyway unless it is to show that you have many of them, if that is the case then the one that is ready by the end of August would do that. they didnt surrender after the first bombing so thats why they dropped two bombs
Marriage vs an informal partnership

Banning pre-nuptial agreements may discourage some couples from getting married, because they will not be able to enter into a sort of arrangement they are comfortable with. The marriage itself is a sort of contract. If the way marriage ends is completely controlled by the state (the courts) many people will not be able to counter the risks that they see in getting married through another kind of contract-- a pre-nuptial agreement. Some people will fear the divorce procedure that will be more painful, complicated and impersonal if voluntary agreements in the form of pre-nups are not considered, others will fear for their assets. Yet, informal partneships offer little legal protection to the parties involved and ultimately people will be worse off. Pre-nups enhances the liberty of people to enter into the sort of arrangements that they're comfortable with and what they truly desire while still maintaning the legal protection of the state.