Is there an example where the likelihood principle (LP) would lead to markedly different (and equally defensible) inferences?

All the examples I see are very silly, comparing a binomial with a negative binomial, where the p-value of the first is 7% and of the second 3%, which are "different" only insofar one is making binary decisions on arbitrary thresholds of significance such as 5%. If I change the threshold for 1%, for instance, both lead to the same conclusion.

I've never seen an example where it would lead to markedly different and defensible inferences. Is there such an example?

I'm asking because I've seen so much ink spent on this topic, as if the LP is something fundamental in the foundations of statistical inference. But if the best example one has are silly examples like the one above, the principle seems completely inconsequential.

Thus, I'm looking for a very compelling example, where if one uses the LP the weight of evidence would be overwhelmingly pointing in one direction, whereas if one doesn't use the LP, the weight of evidence would be overwhelmingly pointing in an opposite direction, and both conclusions look sensible.

Ideally, one could demonstrate we can have arbitrarily far apart, yet sensible, answers, such as $p =0.1$ versus $p= 10^{-10}$ with proportional likelihoods.

PS: Bruce's answer does not address the question at all.