This paper discusses four major argumentation theoretical frameworks with respect to their use in support of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). We consider these frameworks as useful tools for both system-centred and user-centred XAI. The former is concerned with the generation of explanations for decisions taken by AI systems, while the latter is concerned with the way explanations are given to users and received by them.

This course aims to introduce students to an exciting and dynamic area that has witnessed remarkable growth over the past 36 months. Argument mining builds on opinion mining, sentiment analysis and related to tasks to automatically extract not just *what* people think, but *why* they hold the opinions they do. From being largely beyond the state of the art barely five years ago, there are now many hundreds of papers on the topic, millions of dollars of commercial and research investment, and the 6th ACL workshop on the topic will be in Florence in 2019. The tutors have delivered tutorials on argument mining at ACL 2016, at IJCAI 2016 and at ESSLLI 2017; for ACL 2019, we have developed a tutorial that provides a synthesis of the major advances in the area over the past three years.

Governments are increasingly utilising online platforms in order to engage with, and ascertain the opinions of, their citizens. Whilst policy makers could potentially benefit from such enormous feedback from society, they first face the challenge of making sense out of the large volumes of data produced. This creates a demand for tools and technologies which will enable governments to quickly and thoroughly digest the points being made and to respond accordingly. By determining the argumentative and dialogical structures contained within a debate, we are able to determine the issues which are divisive and those which attract agreement. This paper proposes a method of graph-based analytics which uses properties of graphs representing networks of arguments pro- & con- in order to automatically analyse issues which divide citizens about new regulations. By future application of the most recent advances in argument mining, the results reported here will have a chance to scale up to enable sense-making of the vast amount of feedback received from citizens on directions that policy should take.