Everybody believes in a worldview!

Refutation of Pro rebuttal and defining of the debate. Looking to the discussion of the existence and self awareness my opponent is failing into the abusive position of skewing the grounds of debate. He did claim that the debate applies to "all humans naturally due to us having the ability to have abstract thinking." The issue comes in when he interprets his phrase to say not "all humans", but all humans who prove to have abstract thinking premises are faulty as they exclude all marginal humans and in his opinion require communication of ideas of abstract thought which he automatically defines as beliefs. He claims "if they don't have the ability yet, or inhibited by a mental condition, to say, speak, or conceive the idea of "I exist" then they are excluded from my premises." yet we see in all my examples the individuals conceive that they exist. Infants have self preservation which would acknowledge self awareness. The same applies to the uneducated and severely mentally impaired and even a mufti personality persona who knows it is alive. Moving to the next Pro statement he merely runs a personal attack saying I am not a seeker of truth. Then claims I provide no evidence to the concept that we can not know truths to be absolute.......theory makes it clear that there is no absolutes yet he wants me to provide evidence to prove my position true. This is not possible under skepticism other than to note what we perceive as both relatives and absolute truths have changed over time showing no constants. Next we see a dialogue from Mr.x to Pro about atheism which Pro even said takes away from the original debate and I agreed in round 2 and claimed we strike it out. I have already made the argument that the whole dialogue is flawed as Pro is using an individual who he writes the dialogue for and give him beliefs under his own framework/premise. Now looking to Pyrrhonism and Academic SkepticismI understand pro calls them circular and self-refuting but they are not. A skeptic is a skeptic of all things, even his own philosophy. I leave this to the voters but it seems understandable that free will allows for a person to walk between the parallels of these theory's as my prior example stated. Pro wants hard evidence or absolute truths claiming my philosophy,y which holds that there are none, is greater than his. I only needs show it possible for a human not to hold beliefs, I need not prove skepticism is the true way to think. We must look at how the Con wins the debate as Pro argues the individual I prove to have no world views must also conceive "I exist". Let us once more look to the many examples I have given that the Pro refuses to address other than saying they fall out of his premise (obviously he would not want to include marginal humans that debunk his claim.) 1. Infants are self-aware thus they conceive they exist. 2. Those never educated work on evolutionary drives. 3. multi-personality know and can claim they exist while knowing nothing of reality and simply stating the main persona beliefs while holding none. 4. Advanced Alzheimer's patients know they are a person but asked any question of belief the could immediately forget or change the answer (did the ever really hold it?) 5.Round 2 attack on contention #3 argument where I stated those apathetic to religion use free will to have no belief or view simply by not thinking or caring about it. 6. Determinism - pro simply stated it requires a belief but never attacked the fact that environment and bio-chemicals force certain beliefs and similarly he drops indoctrination and how beliefs of other forced on to us may not be our own but merely actions and comment that would appear to favor said beliefs. Finally to pro's last statement he states a circular argument but this proves false I do state truth can not be known under skepticism but my position is not proving skepticism it is showing under our agreed term of belief he can have his but I can show one without belief.