Everybody believes in a worldview!

This is only part 1 of my rebuttal due to character limits. As I originally stated, this argument applies to humans due to us having the ability to have abstract thinking. Assuming animals are self-aware, there is nothing to say they have abstract thought. It just shows they can navigate through life with self-preservation. Even still, unless one can communicate with an animal concerning matters of metaphysics you don't know if they have a worldview or not. Con then referenced infants, and the mentally handicapped. Again, 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. Next Con attacked premise 2. I was surprised at this because I thought for sure that anybody who denies his own existence isn't a sincere seeker of truth. Even if I don't really exist, at a minimum "I exist" is a relative truth. Again Con is presupposing with no evidence that absolute truths, such as my existence, can not be known. Con quoted my first argument when I said, "most will admit they believe," to follow with a minority then don't believe. This quotation was taken out of context. If you continue the quote it reads: "Most will admit they believe in other individual minds separate from their own." The minority now in full context don't believe in separate minds from their own, which in turn is a belief. Never did it mean one is completely without beliefs. Con quotes my original argument, "They show to be faulty (my examples of people fitting into categories) because his example states that outside beliefs forcibly create our own." I was trying to show that the words we use to define ideologies don't themselves create the ideology, rather are just tools to communicate certain concepts. For example examine the following dialogue between myself and Mr. X; Pro: Do you believe in God? Mr.X: I don't believe in anything. Pro: So included in that you thereby don't believe in God? Mr.X: Correct. Pro: So you are an Atheist. Mr.X: No I don't believe in anything. This is to show even though Mr. X denies the existence of God, and denies being an Atheist, he is still an Atheist if he continues to affirm there is no God. Atheist is just a word for one who does not believe in a God. People hold these words as labels and think the word itself is the worldview. But it is just a word used in communicating a certain definition. One must take away the feeling of a label and just look at the definition for it to become apparent to them. So Mr. X is an Atheist, just not self-proclaimed. Next we go to Con's defense of my 1st attack on his 1st contention. I never argued that Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism were incompatible with each other. I took the root of both forms of skepticism that state absolute truth can not be known. I then showed how this statement is self-refuting thereby denying the idea that absolute truth can not be known. I am not throwing one out because of the other, rather I'm throwing both out on the fact that their root skeptic claim on truth, is logically fallacious. Con then misunderstands his goal for winning this debate by stating: "Con needs only show the possibility or existence of one sole individual with no beliefs (which was never refuted)." The correct statement would be that Con needs to show how an individual, who can conceive of the concept "I exist" (premise 2), could possibly not have a worldview. Of course I have refuted an individual can not hold a worldview, hence this entire debate. Con's defense of my 2nd attack on his 1st contention is also incorrect. First Con states truth can not be known. Then he states belief requires an acceptance of truth. The fact that I say I believe in God thereby either refutes his truth claim, or his definition of belief. I gave an alternative of relative truth to patch this logical inconsistency yet Con rejected it leaving himself in another circular argument. To be continued!