Everybody believes in a worldview!

Thanks to pro response. I will begin by attacking my opponents case then move onto refuting his attacks while building my case further.We first needs look at his three step structure determining that everyone holds worldviews. Now he claims step 2 to be self-supporting but we see multiple flaws there in and in the cycle. First, we must see the failure of the claim that self-recognition of existence equals a holder of worldviews. Many animals and marginal humans prove to be self-aware but the cycle then demands that we accept animals hold world views as do newborn infants and those with advanced Alzheimer's and severe short term memory loss. Of course we see that impairments stop them from having worldview. This can be linked to my claim under contention 2 of uneducated children who then are working off evolutionary tendency and the multi-personality persona such as repressed 2 yr olds (ex. Sybil). Second, we see that it is not a self-supporting claim that we exist since true knowledge of such a thing is not possible.Moving down we look to crede's contention one statements of not holding beliefs being a belief or "self contradictory. Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism will show this to be false and as I pick apart my opponents attacks later we will see it to be correct. Furthermore he even state's "Most will admit they believe" which does leave the minority who do not believe.Further down we see a quick claim against atheist but Pro steps away to not "take away from the original subject". Con agrees with said claim thereby I would strike it out of the rounds.Finally we look to Pro's last paragraph where he makes the assumed claim all people hold world views and then gives a faulty analysis and example. They show to be faulty because his example states that outside beliefs forcibly create our own. Reality of being human or not through societies vision or opinion only proves our opinion of what is perceived to be a majority view. In no way does it demand we have a belief and the example is unfair as it a human with a belief "you feel you have evolved".Now onto my opponents attacks and rebuilding.We look to the two attacks placed against Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism and see the errors in both namely. Attack #1 : My opponent would like to claim the logic to be circular but this is not the case. I would like to point out his quote was not taken from my case but in addition we see that they are two philosophies that any individual could hold both true as parallels to one another. Neither theory forces us to check against the other but it is very possible a skeptic could walk with both. Link this back to the notion that Con needs only show the possibility or existence of one sole individual with no beliefs (which was never refuted). Attack #2 : The main issue we run into is interpretation of definitions. We both agreed belief to be Acceptance of truth. Thus we can see absolute truths always come into play because holding a belief means we accept it to be the truth. Relative truth needs more examples or further justification and "plausible truths" fail in the scenarios of jointly having Pyrrhonism in the mix. Thus possibility of holding no beliefs remains intact.Attack on contention #2I concede that I failed to change my definition to be in line. Even so pro only argues it those isolated CAN have beliefs but it is just as likely or more so that they do not, especially in regards to the children of isolated individuals who receive no education.Next, when looking to determinism it is not a held belief. The biochemical forces exist much like evolutionary drive to breath and eat are not beliefs but actions that occur. Finally,in brainwashing held views one does not accept as truth is not there own and breaks the agreed definition of belief.Attack on contention #3My opponent ignores my claim that an individual can choose to be apathetic to religion and that outside views have no effect on a state of belief.