Sam, I think the best clarification would be a big long list of examples of what you mean. For example take this list of claims:

   1. Women are inferior.
   2. Gays are evil.
   3. Whites are greedy.
   4. Children are valid sex objects.
   5. Hitler wasn't all bad.
   6. vi is the best editor
   7. Drug users should be killed.
   8. Islam is not compatible with western democracy.
   ...

Immediately on writing this I make a distinction on "ethically falsifiable". Some statements just aren't clear (1,2,3). The ethically falsifiable ones (4,5,7,8) are closest to what you're talking about, I think. If you can control your rising gorge then you could have a rational debate about them! The debate would be about connecting some set of principles to the claim. "Ethical falsifiability" then means that a claim is well-formed enough that a connection to some set of concrete principles can be made.

I also notice that I've instinctively not introduced "scientifically falsifiable" statements, such as these:

   1. Global warming is real.
   2. Vaccinations cause autism.
   3. The earth is flat
   4. Evolution is wrong
   5. Science is a scam.
   6. Putin helped Trump get elected.
   7. Light is a wave in luminferous ether.
   ...

To me, these claims are just not that interesting (the one exception is 5, a meta-assertion about the state of academic scientific inquiry itself). It would take a person with extraordinary credentials to get me to start talking about any of these.