Some (many?!) philosophers are realists, saying values are real (objective).
So there could be a question "Is it wrong to murder people for funsies?" because that is a widespread claim and strong evidence isn't usually provided.
Then there is this statement
It is not for philosophical discussions about skepticism itself.
Of course there is moral skepticism
"Moral skepticism" denotes a class of metaethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal, claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable, mind-independent moral truths.
I think the aforementioned faq-statement doesn't apply to this. Some forms of skepticism have been called inconsistent and I think scientific skepticism implies an acceptance of the reality of the external world.
research-level science, particular claims
from the FAQ
If your question is not about a particular claim, or if it is about research-level science
I think there are particular claims in ethics (it's wrong to murder people) that are often made without giving evidence (because it is assumed that others agree).
Of course such discussions would have to happen on the assumption that moral truths can be known otherwise many answers would be sadly similar (relativist, nihilist, etc.) and also more appropriate for philosophy.SE.