People instigating debates not accepting newbie opponents is elitist

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. I know that some of you had to get up really early this morning to make it to tonight's debate, so I will try to make it worth your while.I am honored to share this platform with darkcity because his name makes me think of Batman, and that's cool.Before I begin my arguments, I would like to urge the readers to keep their eye on the ball. Keep in mind what we are debating here. The question is whether or not people who initiate debates but who don't allow newbies to accept are elitist. My opponent defines elitism as deserving favoured treatment because of one's percieved superiority with regard to their intellect, social status, or financial resources.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.The way I intend to argue my case is to give an alternative motive to explain why old-timers initiate debates but don't allow newbies to accept. The question will them come down to which explanation is more plausible--the elitist explanation or my explanation.My explanation is that with people who restrict newbies from accepting their debates do so, not because they think newbies are inferior in any way, but rather, because newbies are wildcards. With newbies, you don't know what you're going to get. At least with people who have been here for a while and have participated in debates, you know what you're going to get. There are many people who join the site, participate in maybe one debate, and you never see them again. The people who stay are people who want to debate and strive to make meaningful contributions. But when somebody first joins, you don't know which category they're going to fall under. They might be brilliant people or they might be trolls. You just don't know. Since newbies are wildcards, restricting one's debate so that only old-timers can accept increases your chances of getting a good opponent, but it is not because old-timers percieve themselves as superior or newbies as inferior.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 beause 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.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 intiate these debates.But besides that, it isn't that hard to get your foot in the door. You can initiate your own debate or accept a debate that isn't restricted to old-timers. Once you've participated in three debates, you can start voting.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.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.