The input is taken from a negotiation between two participants who take the role of campsite neighbors and negotiate for Food, Water, and Firewood packages, based on their individual preferences and requirements. Given an utterance and recent dialogue context containing past 3 utterances (wherever available), output Yes if the utterance contains the no-need strategy, otherwise output No. no-need is a cooperative negotiation strategy. It is used when a participant points out that they do not need an item based on personal context such as suggesting that they have ample water to spare. no-need can directly benefit the opponent since it implies that the item is up for grabs.

[EX Q]: Context: 'Didn't you bring any firewood at all with you?' 'Yes, but the firewood I have will be used to keep us warm tonight.  Like you mentioned before it will be a bit chilly tonight.' 'Ahh, I forgot about that. OK. I'll take 2 packages of firewood, give you 2 waters, and 1 food packages as you do have some fish to cook and I don't. Do we have a deal?'
Utterance: 'OK, we have a deal.🙂'
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Context: 'Hello, what would you like for the packages?' 'we are cold and hungry so we need firewood and food the most, what about you?' 'I don't care about the firewood, but I would like food and water the most.'
Utterance: 'you can take water if i get all the firewood and some food'
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Context: 'I think so too. I have a medical condition - type 1 diabetes - that makes it important to bring extra water and food. I'd like to request more of those two items.' 'I don't have a problem with you having extra water.  I'll give you all the water, if I can have all of the firewood.' 'I think that's more than fair. That only brings up the food to be divided. One of us is going to have to take less.'
Utterance: 'I'd be fine with taking less food.  So, I would get 3 firewood, 1 food, and 0 water.  Is that correct?'
[EX A]:
Yes

