Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:

(0) Obligation:

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(0, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(0, x) → 0
*(s(x), s(y)) → s(+(*(x, y), +(x, y)))
sum(nil) → 0
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → s(0)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

Q is empty.

(1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Recursive Path Order [RPO].
Precedence:

[sum₁, cons₂] > *₂ > +₂ > s₁
[sum₁, cons₂] > *₂ > 0
[sum₁, cons₂] > prod₁ > 0
[sum₁, cons₂] > prod₁ > s₁
nil > 0
nil > s₁

With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:

+(x, 0) → x
+(0, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(0, x) → 0
*(s(x), s(y)) → s(+(*(x, y), +(x, y)))
sum(nil) → 0
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → s(0)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

(2) Obligation:

Q restricted rewrite system:
R is empty.
Q is empty.

(3) RisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven.

(4) TRUE