Your written arguments are generally more persuasive then your oral arguments.
When we see good lawyers in the courtroom arguing their case we often think about what a good job they did in court. The problem is lawyers rarely take the time to see what a good job those lawyers did in writing their motions. As a result lawyers often don't emphasize their written arguments. This problem also stems from an old tactic to put as little as possible in your motion so you don't tilt your hand. I have never found that to be a good tactic.
When we argue our own motions in court and lose, we often come to the conclusion the judge had their mind made up before they even walked into the courtroom. In reality they probably did, or at least had a really good idea on how they were going to rule. At best they are probably just confirming the evidence in the motions, or giving the attorneys a chance to address the answers to questions the judges think they already know.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. A prepared judge should be familiar with the relevant law and facts related to the motion. Otherwise judges would be figuring out how to rule on whim while hearing the arguments for the first time. This just means lawyers must emphasize their written arguments.
