Country life is better than city life

I thank the Proposition for this challenge. I should start off by analyzing the motion in terms of onus. The onus here, rests entirely upon the Proposition. It is their responsibility to show, beyond doubt, that country life is better than city life. This requires two things: a. for them to be able to create an objective quantifier, b. for them to show that according to this objective quantifier country life is better than city life. I need not state that city life is better, that is not my burden. I need only negate my opponent's resolution. I will therefore argue against the first assumption: that there exists an objective quantifier. I will attempt to argue from the point of view that absolute statements cannot be given, or should not be given in such circumstances, and that there are people who may favor country life, and those who may favor city life. One last note, to apply this objective quantifier my opponent will have to use comparison between the two lifestyles, something s/he never did. Let us start with the counter-arguments. For the first point I see no reasoning why this may be a good thing. I for one personally enjoy having close by communities, with close knit societies. There really is not any particular noise in my society either, so I do not see the universality of this point. You will find many houses in the city which are also quite spatial, and you have plenty of room. My father has Diabetes, I remember I was young, and my father fell very sick and if a close by neighbor did not hear me cry, my father would be dead today. Here is a family who love their neighbors very much. On the second point I see no sources to support that the food tastes better, nor do I see how it is an advantage. Especially since (being handicapped) walking for me is hard enough, how will I ever bend and do labor? I have no brothers, and sisters, and my parents are both suffering from either Diabetes or Blood Pressure. On a second note you can also buy pure, organic food in the city.[1] The third point is rather silly, my opponent is assuming that everyone is rich in the rural areas. This seems quite elitist to me; I also do not see how s/he supposes this is an advantage which everyone can have? Once more there are many people who may not like hunting, and if they do there are resorts that one can go to. Quite frankly I think if anyone hunts a squirrel they should be hanged publicly. It is a rather disgusting thing to do, unless of course you are going to eat the squirrel. If it is not recreational hunting, and for meat then one can buy meat from stores. The last thing also seems rather ridiculous because my opponent seems to insinuate that they do that every day, even if they do, it would get boring. Not to mention it is dangerous. I would not want to do it, and if anyone does I see no good reason why they could not go for a vacation. Contrast this with city life which as, on average, 30% better job support, schools are on average (statistics based on United Kingdom, Scotland, and Ireland) 20 minutes closer, hospitals 34 minutes closer, and I do not know what GP is but it is 8 minutes closer on average.[2] The lifestyle is often better, where there are less chances of catching diseases, you have more modern hospitals, and a more advanced outlook to life.[3] In 2012 it was shown that students who live in the city have a higher rate by 30 percentile in examinations, if compared to country life.[2 again] I do not feel the need to expand more right now, as my opponent has the burden of proof. [1]http://www.shoporganic.com... [2]file:///C:/Users/Abu%20l'%20Ajab/Downloads/rt43ruralurbanarea_tcm77-221319.pdf (Rural and urban areas: comparing lives using rural/urban classifications By Tim Pateman, Office for National Statistics) [3]http://www2.eur.nl...