Argue one hard AI case from two lenses that disagree.

Take the Setzer v. Character.AI case (or another hard AI case you know). Write TWO short arguments about the same facts (150 words each):

1. Argument A — pick one lens (rights / justice / utility / common good / virtue / care). Name it. Argue the case strictly inside it, citing the facts that lens makes matter.
2. Argument B — pick a lens that reaches the OPPOSITE verdict. Name it. Argue just as hard.
3. One line: which argument is stronger — and is that because the verdict is right, or because the argument was made more rigorously in frame?

You pass when both arguments stay cleanly inside their lens (no lens-hopping) and genuinely disagree. This is your warm-up for the Tribunal.