1. Chinese combines agglutinative word derivation with regular analytic grammar, avoiding both the difficulty of synthetic languages and the large vocabularies needed by isolating languages. English takes the worst of both sides, having highly irregular remnants of lost synthetic grammar, and almost no useful word derivation.

2. No features "unlearnable" for foreigners, like noun cases or articles.

3. Tiny vocabulary, per 1. ~3500 characters is sufficient even for science heavy topics.

4. Pronunciation on the simpler side; a restricted set of simple syllables, with no unusual features. (tone doesn't seem to be a problem in practice except for people who reached advanced levels while ignoring tones, and tones are not uncommon worldwide)
English has one of the largest vowel inventories, several rare consonants, and complex syllables.

5. The everyday way of expression is highly literal; almost everything what is said is meant literally, what is meant figuratively usually makes no literal sense.
English has an elaborate system of hinting and avoidance speech that may be hard to master for speakers of unrelated langauges; things that make sense literally may not be meant literally and this may lead to unnoticeable misunderstandings, as literally meant statements of foreign speakers may be interpreted in highly unpredictable ways by native speakers; truthful statements can imply lies and seemingly innocuous comments may be interpreted as insults.

Some counterarguments:
>It is still necessary to learn over 3000 characters to be fully fluent.
English also needs to be memorized to a large extent, since the spelling is unpredictable.

>My dictionary lists 196000 words
>for example, you can say ??, ??, ??,??, ??, ??, ??, or even stuff like ??.

Most of those are obvious and don't need to be learned separately. ? may actually a case of a missing character, since all the other instances are pronounced piao1