Ultracrepidarian

Imagine, if you will, that you're walking through a park in some snazzy sneakers that cost $50, when you encounter a child drowning in shallow water. You can rescue this child, but you'll completely destroy your shoes. Is it your moral obligation to save the child, even though your shoes will be ruined? 

Now, imagine you want to buy a pair of shoes for $50. Simultaneously, a child somewhere is dying of Malaria. You can use your money instead to buy life-saving treatment for this child. Is it your moral obligation to do so? 

This is a thought experiment initially posed by Peter Singer. You'd be a monster for allowing the child to die in the first scenario, but what about the second? Every time someone spends money for themselves they are passively making a decision not to help someone who needs it far more, though is it really immoral to buy a cup of coffee with money that could have been spent de-worming a family?  

Forums like ours exist all over the internet on places like Discord, Reddit, and elsewhere. The main appeal of DART is the debate section, which is worryingly lifeless.

I'm confident there's a large demographic this site appeals to, but I legitimately don't understand how our few new members find us. When I googled "debate online" and "moderated online debate" this site wasn't listed, only pages upon pages of forums, courses, and videos. Even when actively trying I was able to find the site any way besides a direct search.

I'm also guessing our retention is hurt by the fact there is hardly ever more than one or two debates to accept at a time, many of which are completely forfeited by one side or never voted on. 

Some possible solutions:

Any more ideas?