These discussions really aren't going to go anywhere productive, it's pure politics. I flag both the ones I disagree with and agree with, though I'll comment too if the community decides not to flag because it's worth talking about.

Commenting here - there's two biases they're missing. The first is the "middle choice" bias. If you give people three options: "Do you prefer nothing, a medium amount, or a large amount?" overwhelmingly the middle will be chosen. That's before getting into the merits - when you give someone uneducated on a topic a choice, intuition defaults to the middle.

Second is the word "distribution" - wealth isn't actually distributed. It's built, mined, manufactured, planted, harvested, bartered, bought, sold, negotiated, renovated, cleaned, transported, traded, invented, shipped, developed, and many more things. But it's not distributed. The word itself is flawed, though unfortunately, the most obvious other way to describe is also flawed. ("Should people who honestly build and create wealth be allowed to keep it or have it taken from them by force?" is biased in the other direction) But regardless of questions on framing a debate and choice of words, I doubt this sort of post is going to lead to a good discussion. Someone in favor of mandatory-wealth-moving-aroundedness is going to reply that distribution is a fine choice of word. Someone against is going to reply no it isn't, and taking-by-force is an accurate description. In the end, no one's mind will be changed, and we'll have learned nothing new or interesting.