My opponent may say that sufficient evidence is not required to have a proper belief[EC]. He may say that testimony is a reliable source due to the knowledge of the authority figure giving the testimony[S]. Like a Doctor giving a diagnosis based on the schooling they have received. But in order to be able to accept the "professional's" testimony you must also be able to analyze the source's character, emotion and reasoning at the time of the testimony[Q]. For example a doctor having a bad day may be quick to diagnose a patient with a very common virus or illness to simply get his day over with, and due to this is not truly sincere about the diagnosis[S]. My opponent may say that the professional has the knowledge of years of medical school but if one can't analyze the "professional's" character you have no way of knowing that this individual barely made it out of medical school, or if they are a true expert in the field of study[Q]. Keep in mind, attending medical school doesn't make you a good doctor just like attending church doesn't make you a saint.
Our opponent makes our argument for us [I]. The idea that one should never believe based on insufficient evidence is grounded in the theory that you can only know something if you have seen factual evidence in support of your belief [S]. But our opponent goes on to say that to assess the testimony of a doctor, you must know his character and emotional state [S]. We have learned that character and emotion are factors in deciding how much you trust the testimony of someone [Q]. So we humbly submit that the acceptance of a diagnosis is based on faith that the doctor is capable of making a well reasoned diagnosis because he is moral and just, therefore you cannot have complete evidence that the doctor is right [Ri]. You can only believe that he knows what is best because he has training, and trust his judgement [C].
My opponent seems to say that accepting testimonial claims based on insufficient evidence is okay due to having faith in the testimony giver's education. Now when you base something on faith you are saying that you believe something without evidence. In the case of the doctor, my opponent could argue that the simple fact that the doctor is in the office is evidence enough. By that logic it can be said that any person in a doctors office with a lab coat on becomes a doctor due to the environment. "To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another." by William James "The Will to Believe." In this quote by James I would like to point out that you may think you know the person treating you is a doctor, but you would not know for certain even if they have certificates and diplomas. I say this because all they are in base form is a print out that anyone can do. In this sense it would be wise to seek a second opinion or even a third to verify what the first doctor has said. Because it may be the case that the initial doctor was not truly certified. But by verifying his conclusions true based of evidence you can argue that it could be the case that if the second or even third doctor agrees with the initial diagnosis was indeed correct and it seems to be that the initial doctor was right and true, but this is done by gathering trace data for yourself and using it to connect the similarities with the different professionals to form your own non trace data. As you clearly see you have confirmed the diagnosis through what could be seen as an initial I.Q, is the original doctor a true doctor. But my opponent would like to say that you can simply have faith, and this is belief with no evidence. The correct route would be to take the argument Plato created, I only know that I know nothing, stating that you do not have all the knowledge in the world, and can't assume based on faith that others do have that knowledge.