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.

Let me give you an example: Context:
Utterance: 'how about I give you 2 waters and 1 food package in exchange for all your firewood?'
The answer to this example can be: No
Here is why: The utterance does not use the no-need strategy since it never refers to an item that the participant does not need.

OK. solve this:
Context: 'That totally makes sense! I actually am good on firewood thankfully, I got some from a person selling it from their yard a little bit ago.' 'I would have been able to bring more with me by getting some from my parents, but my father decided he wanted to get rid of what he had left and so has been enjoying his fire pit a lot lately.' 'Oh I have always wanted a firepit! I totally understand. If you'd like you can have all 3 of the firewood supply stash to get you started.'
Utterance: 'And I think it's entirely reasonable for you to have all 3 of the water as dehydration can be very bad very quickly, especially with diabetes.'
Answer:
No