One argument against beards I've heard multiple times, both from individual JWs and from the platform is roughly:
'Timothy got circumcised so as not to stumble others! Shouldn't you be thankful you don't have to do that? Shaving is much easier!'
Putting aside the fact that it has nothing to do with something being 'easy' or 'difficult', and everything to do with the principles involved, let's take them up on this comparison:
Timothy was circumcised specifically to not offend the non-Christians he was going to be preaching to. There is no place in the civilized world that I am aware of that looks down on well groomed beards, so therefore there would be no reason to shave for the sake of preaching to others, seeing as many respectable people from all over the world have them: doctors, lawyers, police officers, fathers, grandfathers, clergy, etc. This alone renders the comparison irrelevant.
But couldn't the same principle apply to the congregation, who are offended by beards? Let's see the very different way circumcision was viewed when imposed by FELLOW Christians, in Galatians:
not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour . . .
The phrase "stumbled" is all too often misunderstood by JWs to mean 'offended', but it actually refers to being stumbled away from Christ. If the offendee still claims to be a Christian, then they're just attempting to impose their own conscience on others, a conscience which itself has already been imposed on by a high-control group.