We put forward and provide an empirical evaluation of strategies for fully automatic flexible dispute derivations for assumption-based argumentation (ABA). These being a novel dialectical means of judging claims in the context of ABA. Central among our findings is that our naive direct implementation of flexible disputes outperforms the current state-of-the-art system for ABA disputes (acceptance of claims, admissible semantics) especially when allowing forward moves from premisses to claims in addition to backwards from conclusions to premisses.