If I recall correctly from my American Rhetoric course, people attempted to correlate drinking with high levels of spousal and child abuse. Additionally, there were some economic arguments that when workers blow their whole paycheck at the bar immediately after work (which was apparently common) it was less useful to the economy than well thought out investments. And of course you then have the imagery of the poor wife and children at home with not enough food to eat because Hubby drank his money away.

Your argument for prohibition would depend on what your agenda was. For example, many Protestants felt that consuming alcohol led to immoral behavior like sex outside of wedlock, which to them was a sin. There were also a lot of different groups who felt alcohol was economically detrimental. Some people pointed out how many men would leave work and go straight to the bar where they would spend their entire paycheck leaving them and their families with no money to buy basic necessities. Others felt that alcohol was making the work force less productive, and that banning alcohol would raise productivity. You had people who owned tea and other nonalcoholic beverage companies that were strong supporters of prohibition, because they felt that it would increase the sales of their own products. During WW1, there were a large number of people who supported prohibition because the ingredients that were used to make beer and liquor could be used to support the war effort and feed soldiers. There were all sorts of reasons that people were in support of prohibition.

A good example of a progressive view on the arguments for prohibition can be found in the saloon keeper character from Upton Sinclair's 'the Jungle'. He's painted in the novel as having low morals, connections to machine politics, and serving customers in an irresponsible and malicious manner. The novel also pointed out many of the stereotypes regarding alcohol consumption during the period.