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: 'Then it is good deal.  I need two wood, 1 food, and 1 water.' 'I really need all the food, I have a lot of people to feed' 'I will provide you the food, but I am asking only one for my people.'
Utterance: 'I am giving you all the water,  how come you need the food? '
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Context: 'I can't wait 🙂 Let's talk about these supplies. I've got hungry mouths to feed, Can I take the food and you can have half the firewood and all the water?' 'Hmm, I need food too. I am willing to split. I will give you 2 food since you claimed it first. Can I have 2 waters then?' 'That's fair, but I have wiggle room on the water, how about I take two food, two firewood and you take 3 water, 1 food, 1 firewood?'
Utterance: 'Is there anyway you will go with that I get two firewood? I need food the most but since you get most of that can I get most of the firewood? So 1 food, 2 firewood, and 2 water for me?'
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Context: 'I completely understand, thank you for compromising with water and food. Wished we had 4 firewoods to divide and share it equaly, may I ask how long will you be camping for? Im afraid I need 2 firewoods as well, maybe we can see who has the greater need? ' 'I am going to be camping for a couple of weeks, so I will need quite a bit. I also realized some additional water would be good, because I have some meals that need me to boil water. Maybe you can have 2 firewood in exchange for me having one of your waters? Then you would still have plenty of water, but also plenty of firewood 🙂' 'So sorry, I just realized you did not agree to the 3 waters in exchange of 3 foods. if you want a water, i will also will need one food. just to make things more fair on my end. If not i am looking at 2 waters, 0 foods, and 1 firewood. But i am willing to compromise for 3 waters, 1 firewood, and 0 foods. and you'll get 3 foods, 2 firewoods, and 0 waters, what do you think?'
Utterance: ' I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, so we both get a fair deal. I would really like if I get 3 food, 1 water, and 1 firewood. Then you would get 2 water and 2 firewood. You said that you really need water and food, so I think that would work best for both of us to get what we need most. What do you think? 🙂'
[EX A]:
Yes