One of the important facets of persuasive rhetoric (which I learned very late) is that it’s never necessary to defend your argument with an explanation as to your personal circumstances, and why they have brought you to particular conclusions.
I don’t mean to imply that personal circumstances are not relevant to one’s argument. It’s just that referring to them is rarely convincing. You can say, for example, “I believe that some Xs are violent, because I have encountered such Xs in my life.” Yet your debating partner may wish to question your perceptions, at this point. In any case, it is more than hard for most people to put themselves into your shoes wholly on the basis of anecdotal evidence. Most people have a difficult enough time putting themselves into their own shoes, as they have been trained not to pay too much attention to their own expectations of life in relation to their experiences of various types of social contexts.
Just mention one’s views and what one intends to do as a result of them. That way the logic of one’s views is unspoken, hence seemingly transcendent. If someone wants to know your views, they must then either ask politely — or guess, and be rebuffed if they are proven wrong about them. IN such a way, they can find a way to learn, inch by inch, what one’s views are, but never present your views on a plate, in such a way that others feel that they’re mere postulates, which can be easily rejected as such.