People instigating debates not accepting newbie opponents is elitist

"There is no question that some long time members restrict their debates so that newbies can't accept. But whether they do it out of a sense of elitism or not depends on whether they do it because they perceive themselves and their fellow old-timers as having superior intellect, social status, or financial resources. With that in mind, it will be hard to conduct this debate without engaging in a bit of motive-mongering, which a speculative enterprise." (con)An elitist system can be created even if no one sets out to create such a system (ie. that is the motivation). In fact I would argue elitist system rarely evolve from people wishing to create elitism. For example, some people argue that entrance exams to secondary/high-school high establishments are elitist. This is because people from poor backgrounds will have had less opportunity to develop there intellect and exam skills. Not many people would say the motivation/purpose for entrance exams are to exclude students from poor backgrounds. Rather they are to allow the best students to have access to to appropriate education where they can use their intellect. Hence, the exams create an elitist system, without that ever being the intention. And why some people suggest affirmative action as a solution. http://ccms.ukzn.ac.za...Now I wish clear up an issue some people may find with my definition,""elitist" = Long term members of the site deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect and social status." (pro)The word "deserve" may lead some people to conclude that elitism must have people consciously creating a system which flavors certain people. I reject this as stated above. It should also be seen from the way I have argued. No where have said long-term-members "are" elitist, I have stated that elitism is NOT long-term-members motivation. Rather the system is "elitist". I stated there are ways to change the website, the system, to mitigate the long-terms-members concerns."Interestingly enough, my opponent seems to already agree with some of what I said. He said he understands that people limit who can accept their debates in order to avoid "time wasters" and because they think it will improve the quality of debates on this site. And he's right. But notice that does not entail that people who limit their debates are elitist." (con)Indeed, that the issue is not long-terms-members motivation. Maybe the site-owners are elitist by allowing this system to go on, but I doubt this is what motivates them. Rather I believe their motivation is to create a good experience for all users."My opponent makes the observation that limiting who can accept debates makes it difficult for newbies to get their foot in the door. I agree with him, but notice that is irrelevant to the question of this debate because it doesn't tell us anything about the motives of the people who initiate these debates." (con)My opponent states he agrees there is a level of difficultly for new-comers. It is this that creates the elitist system, so it is far from irrelevant to the debate."Also, making it initially difficult weeds out new comers who actually are time wasters, so there's a practical advantage to it. If you must initiate a debate before accepting one, the other members of debate.org get to see how you write and how you argue before you accept a debate and before anybody else agrees to accept one of your debates. It seems like a good system to me." (con)The trouble is the process also "weeds out" people who aren't time-wasters. It also allows people who are time-wasters to continue using the site. It encourages people to start debates they aren't really interested just so they can access being a "Contender" and voting."Since none of these considerations entail that a person who initiates a debate with newbie restrictions entails any assumption that newbies are inferior, people who initiate such debates are not elitist."(con)Here you have to look at how the rating system works. If you win debates your rating is going to increase, and the longer you're been around the more likely you are to pick up some points. This is how the system measures debating skill (arguly related to intellect), and how long you're been around (related to social status). Elitist = "...favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect and social status." The long-term-member may not assume newbies are inferior but this is exactly what the rating system does. It is the use of this rating to exclude new-comers that creates the elitist system.I will now state some alternative methods to avoid elitism whist at the same time addressing long-term-members frustration with time-wasters. The ability to duplicate a debate. This would make it easy to debate the issue again if the first debate wasn't satisfying. The ability to terminate the debate if both parties agree or somebody forfeits. Avoids debates going on if people feel it is no longer satisfying. The ability to extend submission time if both parties agree. This would allow people with genuine reasons for not making the deadline not to "spoil" the debate. Lastly there could be a new statistic relating to how satisfying you found your opponents debating. After the debate you would rate your opponent. Newbies could start at say 50% and the default acceptance be 25%. This would be a better measure of whether someone is a time-waster, rather than Debate skills and Activity level.