When I was car shopping late last year, the availability of AWD with a manual transmission in a reasonably priced car is what brought me to Subaru and the Crosstrek/Impreza. It's not difficult to make the case that the CVT is objectively better in terms of power, mileage, etc... but the bottom line for me is that I find manuals more enjoyable in almost all conditions, and I say that as someone who has commuted in both SoCal and Northern Virginia (DC metro) with manuals.
That said for context, I'm of the opinion that if someone isn't sure they want a manual, they should probably get the 2.5/CVT. "If you have to ask..." comes off as patronizing and elitest in most circumstances, but in this case I think it applies, since the strongest argument in favor of the manual boils down to subjective preference.
One minor point to throw out with regard to the "Mo' Powah!" argument that always gets brought up in favor of the 2.5. Yes, on paper the peak HP and Torque figures are higher by a large enough margin to be of significance. However, in day to day use we have to ask: where is that power made? and how is the car being driven? I haven't looked at dyno charts for the 2.0/MT vs 2.5 'trek, so this speculation is made somewhat out of ignorance, but it's entirely possible that a manual driver who uses the entire rev range is using a similar, or potentially greater, amount of the available power vs. a driver with the 2.5 who just putts along. Terrain also makes a difference, since more available power is used in the mountains vs. Nebraska flatland, or in urban areas where you need to merge with high-speed traffic more frequently.
TL;DR, I prefer the Manual and haven't found it lacking for power, although I would happily take more. However, if you're hesitant to use the entire tach' you, would likely disagree and might be better off with the 2.5 despite being hobbled by the soulless CVT.
