So, troll debates and chronic forfeits are a legitimate problem right now, but this is still a relatively new site. I personally would expect things to stabilize over time.
The problem I see with setting up a separate "elite" category, is that when you take the competent and serious debaters out of the pool with the "regular" folks, then the net IQ of the pool drops dramatically. New users won't be able to find anyone worthwhile to debate in the "regular" pool, and because they lack an opportunity to display their skills, they won't be able to get into the "elite" group either. Over time, this would stagnate both groups.
I think a simpler approach would be to just make a few minor changes to the current pool of debaters to cut down on the "troll" debates and better highlight the serious folks.
1. Remove new accounts from the leaderboard. New users wouldn't be visible until they complete one debate and have their ranking altered from the default starting position.
2. Allow open challenges to specify both a minimum and maximum ranking requirement. Just setting your minimum requirement to 1501 would prevent random noobs from accepting the debate. But putting an upper limit on the debate as well would prevent significantly higher ranked debaters from beating down less experienced debaters who want someone closer to their own rank.
3. Don't give people easy wins off of "Full forfeit" debates. I won't name names, but a lot of folks who currently have multiple wins got them merely for showing up when no actual debate took place.
4. Allow people to tag their own debates as "troll" debates and don't include those in the ranking system. Obviously not everyone will openly admit when they are trolling, but even offering the option may help to filter out some of the more obvious material.
I think the above four changes would help a lot and involve much less effort than setting up a whole new "elite" category.
