When I try to take a really broad view of it, I reason that people demand a place to sleep every night and so there's really no reason to think that airbnb and long-term housing are natural enemies. There's a limit to demand for bedrooms.

Apparently, there are shortages of both long-term housing and temporary places to stay. Partitioning the physical buildings into one or the other class does not help match supply to demand. Of course it can help move the shortage's effect between the two kinds of use, but that's only an issue to the extent that there are shortages for both kinds of use. Really we should fix the shortages, not just try to change the identity of the people who lose out.

When we look at AirBnB specifically, there are anecdotes about its negative effect on housing supply. I have also seen some quantitative/statistical evidence about it, and that shows that it has negligible effect on housing availability. AirBnB is just far too small to have a noticeable impact on housing supply in San Francisco (and the same goes for the handful of other cities whose stats I've seen). So even if you don't buy the theoretical argument about the effect of fragmenting resources on efficient allocation, from a practical point of view it quickly becomes obvious that AirBnB bans are not worthy of serious consideration as a solution to housing shortages.

So the most persuasive motivation for AirBnB bans are the arguments about noise, building security, and so forth. I don't personally find these arguments persuasive either but at least they are debatable.