Known alleged rape victims should not immediately be believed

To kind of even things out since this might be a stacked debate still even though I did try to make it fairer, I will not present any sources this round to support any facts. Instead I'll talk in hypotheticals and use logic. I feel like this should help my opponent a little since they can present sources in this round and be at sort of an advantage. I probably will post sources next round though. But yes, I agree to that definition of believed provided by my opponentKeep in mind that I tried to make this debate a little fairer by changing it to that people you know who are claiming to have been raped should not immediately be believed. I figured this would make things a little easier on con since I originally was talking about in general which I think would be harder since we do live by the rule innocent until proven guilty in probably every country. This principle still sort of applies, but not to as great of extant if we were talking about the law instead of trusted friends and relatives. So there can still be argument for "guilty until proven innocent" since you can make the argument that the relative or friend is a trusted person. I won't make any arguments directly rebutting that this round so that you may use it if you wish, and perhaps you can give better logic for it than I can. Now, moving onto my argument: I believe that an accusation such as rape should be taken seriously by relatives and friends, but it should not be readily believed until they have evidence as well. I believe it is common for people to believe their relatives and in many cases we consider our relatives trustworthy unless they've shown that they make things up. Now, suppose you have person A who is a cousin of Person b. Person C is a sibling of Person b. Person B tells their sibling, person c, that their cousin, person a, raped them. Person C is now very likely to respond negatively to this, perhaps ostracized person A and maybe even fight with them if they got angered by them believing person A, raped their sibling. However, suppose this story was made up, or maybe person B was mistaken and it was really someone who looked a lot like Person A or maybe even person B dreamt it happened and thought it really did happen. Ok maybe the second and third situations aren't that likely, but the first is certainly more than just a possibility, but the last two are still possibilities even if improbable. This new hostility that person C, person A's cousin, has towards person A would be unjust and unfounded then. Person B, whether deliberately or not, caused a rift in the relations between family members. This same situation would apply to friends as well, if person A, B, and C were friends. In the case of friends, it could mean losing your friends. I believe it is always a good motto not to jump to conclusions any time a friend or relative tells you something unless you've seen evidence of it yourself. What a friend or relative telling you they were raped by someone should do, is cause you to merely suspect that person, and not accuse them or act in such a way that you already believe to know for sure that they did it. This would be the more rational approach and can save a lot of relationships, I'm sure. I don't really have any other arguments to make right now, though if I think of one later I'll present it in the third round. I did already mention that the belief in "innocence until proven guilty" that society generally has could still apply here and I think it should as it would help save some relationships. I'll turn this over to my opponent. Hopefully I was being fair here, but if you think I went to soft, I can up my game in round 3. I figured I might throw you a soft ball in one of these a rounds since this debate might still believed by many to be stacked against the con position.