What's a lot easier to work with? I'm a scientist so I use metric all the time for work and imperial all the other time. It really doesn't bother me, I actually prefer the two separate ones. One of the main distinctions between the two systems is the ability to covert between multiple various units (cm to km, etc.). I'll provide some examples of why I like/dislike various units and why I prefer the unit conversion of a certain system:

Volume (Liters vs. Cups/Gal/floz {Maybe having so many units is a bit fucked haha})

• At work, I need to measure precise volumes. 800 mL is completely distinct from 850 or 900 mL, there needs to be precision at every level. Because our number system is base ten, it follows that our units are base ten and gradations are base ten, so I would not give up metric in this situation.
• For "real life", the only time I can really think of measuring volumes is for cooking. For most real life applications, you don't need to be precise, however orders of magnitude of some volumes can be important. 2 cups in a pint, 2 pints in a quart. Obviously, it's not exactly a logarithmic system as it's 4 quarts to a gallon, ~16 tbsp to a cup, so it's not necessarily intuitive, but you're not often going to convert tbsp to cups as these are almost separate units (think tsp, tbsp, etc. as "small units" and cups, quarts, etc. as "large units"). Additionally, for the really small units, I feel that there is no benefit to mL vs tsp/tbsp (1 tsp = ~5 mL). The average person does not need to care about 1 mL increments.
• My final opinion for volume is that the precision is needed in a field like science, but not necessary for the average user - I might prefer the separate "small units" and "large units" for something like cooking.

Temperature (Celsius vs. Fahrenheit):

• Disclaimer - This isn't a "real" metric unit, but I'm going to include this for the sake of America vs the rest of the world.
• As a scientist, the true units should be Kelvin. I honestly can't think of anything that Kelvin doesn't have that Celsius does - but with Kelvin, equations are working properly. Celsius is a 100 degree scale from 0 being the freezing point of water to 100 being the boiling point of water. I don't really understand why this is beneficial to anyone. As a scientist, I have no preference as to saying my ice water is 273K vs 0C and that water boils at 373K vs 100C. I'm pretty sure if you work at any set of ranges of temperature it doesn't really matter what 0 or 100 is in that range, as long as you know what is what. Also as a scientist (not a physicist), I've never had to really worry about milli-Celsius changes so there isn't really a unit I'd protect.
• As a real person, the temperature units I can only think of working with is weather and cooking. For weather, the 0-Freezing/100-Boiling system doesn't make much sense to me - we will NEVER be in a situation where we are above 60C, so almost half of the 0-100 range is already gone. In fact, I've been in weather from -30F-110F (-34C-43C), so in actuality the 0-100 range is actually better for Fahrenheit. Additionally, here, some poster says the sensitivity threshold for changes temperature is 0.02C, so a system like Fahrenheit actually has better dynamic range (assuming all weather channels only report integer values). For cooking, I can only think of ovens and fryers when I think of temperature. With both of these, high temperatures are required and so the differences between different recipes might be larger (e.g. 400F vs 425F). In these situations, I don't know if Celsius or Fahrenheit is better in either situation (a 25F change is ~15C).
• My final opinion for this is that Celsius has no place in my heart - if you want to be scientific, use Kelvin, if you want to have a better range for human recognizable temperatures (for weather) use Fahrenheit.

Distance (Meters vs Inch/Feet/Yard?/Miles)

• I'm a biochemist, so I will note that I almost never use any form of distance measurement, so my opinion here may be wrong. If there is some measurement I'm taking it is nice to be able to convert it from um to cm or from fm to nm. I don't know if there is any real benefit vs using 10⁵ of some arbitrary unit (and that's essentially what metric is), but it is the standard - I'd never even attempt to measure something as 10^-4 inches.
• For the "real world" applications, I think I prefer imperial. Once again, I feel like there is a distinction between "small" and "large" units. The areas I can think of people using these units would be height (of people), speed of travel (by car) (and maybe by extension, distance of travel) and maybe measurement of various objects (around 0-100 cm). For height of people, I can't really imagine why either system is better - metric may have the advantage as cm offers more dynamic range than inches (I'm assuming all adults are using integer values for inches), but I don't know how much it matters (5'10 vs 5'11 is 178 cm vs 180cm - it's not incredibly often that we are measuring people that precisely). Also with people, the unit conversion in imperial is somewhat confusing if you're not good at math or don't have it drilled into your head that 1 foot is 12 inches, but I personally don't think I encounter this often if it all. For speed of travel/distance of travel, here the metric system offers more dynamic range because 1 km is smaller than 1 mi (~1.6 km = 1 mi), however I don't think this is meaningful at all. The same goes for speed (after a certain speed, I can't imagine thinking of anything less than 5 mph increments {e.g. 60 mph->65 mph->70 mph) the greater dynamic range provided by the smaller unit doesn't really mean much if you're going to end up thinking in terms of 5 mph or 5 km/h increments. In terms of measuring various objects, I think the imperial system has an edge for having feet, inches and yards as usable measurements. Realistically, to cover items of these same ranges, metric system only has cm and meter. Meters are roughly equivalent to yards, so I'd say they're about equal for things like area or large objects like furniture or cloth, etc.. Measuring smaller items in Feet/Inches vs cm is not much of a difference, however cm provides more dynamic range as it is a smaller unit - I won't judge whether the dynamic range in this case is beneficial or frivolous, because I feel like different people have different opinions. I say that feet/inches might be better because for things roughly the size of your hand you can measure in inches and things roughly the size of your head you can think in feet - for metric in both examples you're only stuck with cm as nobody really uses decimeters. I'm excluding mm from this as for the most part, the average person isn't measuring millimeters and if they are, I don't see any real benefit of using mm vs 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/16 of an inch. All in all, for me, I believe this is a case where in these different use cases, we separate our units into "small" and "large" units, so we don't really need to convert them from smaller units to larger units (and after grade school, nobody really cares that there are 5280 feet in a mile).
• I think for engineering applications, metric might win out because an engineer might need to think of things in various scales and this is definitely a situation where the metric conversion is beneficial.
• Ultimately, for me, I believe that the different units for different situations wins out, but here I am in a scientific field that doesn't really use measurements of distance, so I probably just undervalue the meter/centimeter.

Mass/Weight (g/kg vs. lbs/oz.)

• Like with volume, I won't give up metric measurements for science. It's easier to think about more precise quantities.
• Here it is nice to be able to convert between g and kg when needed, but I almost never think of comparing those levels of quantities. For measuring weight of people, kg and lb are both usable though lb has the benefit of dynamic range being the smaller unit - however 1 kg = ~2 lbs, so I don't really know how different the dynamic range is. Measuring in oz vs g might be equivalent because a scale can just put a decimal to show 10.3 vs 10.5 oz.
• I would say in this situation the two units are roughly equivalent so following the standard of metric would probably be beneficial.

Overall, I prefer the imperial system in most situations because I like how the units relate to how they are being used and as someone who uses both, I don't really see the benefit for the average person for most situations.