The idea of skepticism has a lot of baggage in our popular culture, usually associated with a scoffing refusal to entertain even the possibility of some positive claim.
The reality of the concept is a lot simpler than that.
As someone I knew once put it, to be skeptical is to refuse to accept statements more strongly than the available evidence permits, and to always be willing to re-evaluate a position as new evidence becomes available.
When trying to argue a position on rational grounds, there are certain things that need to be done to convince a skeptical listener. You should be able to provide evidence and reasoning of sufficient strength to convince a listener to move away from the null hypothesis.
Since you’re arguing on rational grounds, you’re asserting that your position is a rational one, that you yourself were once neutral, and were convinced to leave a state of neutral uncertainty by certain arguments and evidence you encountered.
Not presenting such an argument strongly suggests that you don’t possess one. Not possessing one strongly suggests that you never encountered justification sufficient to support the claim you’re making. And that indicates that your position is not a rational one.
Holding and presenting a belief, without possessing rational justification for it, is only possible if your reasons for believing are not rational ones.
In all my life, I have met only a handful of people capable not only of generating rational beliefs but presenting them coherently, and most of them can manage this only for a tiny subset of their beliefs.
The problems arise when such people believe that all of their beliefs are rational merely because they can be reasonable on a few limited subjects, and demand (explicitly or implicitly) that everything they say be afforded the respect due to a justified claim.