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 uv-part strategy, otherwise output No. uv-part is a selfish negotiation strategy. It is used to undermine the requirements of the opponent. For instance, suggesting that the opponent would not need more firewood since they already have the basic supplies or a suggestion that there might be a store near the campsite where the opponent can get the supplies instead.

[EX Q]: Context: 'I am looking for food, me and the kiddos need to eat many snacks for energy while exploring hiking trails. What about?' 'Okay, that makes sense. I really need water. I am willing to trade you all 3 of the food if you will give me all of the water. What do you think?' 'I think that sounds okay but I need at least one water please?'
Utterance: 'If you want one water you can only have 2 foods. Do you really need the water? It sounds like food is a much more important item to you🙂'
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Context: 'That sounds good to me. 🙂 I think we can make a good deal.' 'I can give you 3 wood packages if I can get 3 water and 2 food. So you will receive 3 wood and 1 food. What do you think?' 'I would like 2 wood, 1 water and 1 food. You would get 1 wood, 2 water and 2 food.'
Utterance: 'I don't need any wood. Do you have any alternatives?'
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Context: 'Haha, I know but I am in the same situation! ☹️ and since I am getting less food I feel like it is fair I get on more firewood since I truly need that 🙂' 'Some extra water for coffee might keep us warm, would you consider taking 1 food, 2 wood, 1 water?' 'Sure I can do that 🙂'
Utterance: 'I think we have a deal!!'
[EX A]:
No

