People instigating debates not accepting newbie opponents is elitist

I've had a couple of people bail on me since I've been here and forfeit without an explanation. As time was getting short for my opponent, I was concerned he would, too. I was delighted when I woke up this morning and found that he had posted his arguments before his time ran out. The original resolution of this debate is that "People instigating debates not accepting newbie opponents is elitist. " That means what's at issue in this debate is behavior, not the effects of the behavior. What is being called "elitist" is the behavior of instigating debates but not allowing newbies to accept them. In his opening, he said, "The main point of my argument is that people setting the criteria for opponents so that new comers can't join in is elitist. " Whether this behavior leads to an "elitist system" is irrelevant to the resolution of this debate. Whether a behavior is elitist or not depends on the attitude, idea, or disposition that motivates the behavior. My opponent defined "elitist" as "Long term members of the site deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect and social status. " That means an elitist attitude is an attitude coming from a sense of deserving favoured treatment and of perceiving oneself as superior in intellect and social status. " So motive has everything to do with this debate. I argued in my first post that the motive for instigating debates and not allowing newbies to accept was not elitist, but practical. My opponent has not disputed that and has, instead, changed the subject. Instead of calling it elitist when somebody initiates a debate without letting newbies accept, he's saying the initiation of these debates leads to an elitist system. And instead of elitism being a belief or attitude had by the folks who initiate these debates, elitism is a property of the system created by these debates. But let's give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he worded the resolution in an ambiguous way so as to give me the wrong idea. Perhaps he intended all along to argue, not that the initiators of these debates are elitist, nor that their initiating these debates is an elitist thing to do, but that their initiation of these debates leads to an "elitist system. " Even then, I don't think my opponent has carried his burden of proof. If initiating these debates leads to an elitist system, which my opponent defines as a system in which the members have "favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect and social status," then we should expect debate. org to be composed of nothing but elite members. But debate. org is not composed of nothing but elite members. Therefore, initiating these debates does not lead to an elitist system. Debate. org is abuzz with every range of member, from newbie to oldie, from genius to troll, etc. Most of the debates that are initiated here do not have newbie restrictions on them, so even if the people initiating these debates did it out of elitist motivations, it would still not lead to an elitist system. My opponent says that initiating debates that exclude newbies "encourages people to start debates they aren't really interested just so they can access being a 'Contender' and voting," but I submit that doesn't even make sense. If there is some debate a newbie is interested in that somebody else has initiated, and they cannot accept it, all they have to do is initiate a debate of their own with the same topic, and they are guaranteed to be interested in it. None of these restriction discourage newbies from initiating topics they are interested in. Well, that is pretty much all I have to say. Thank you for reading, and thank you for voting.