Welcome to the forums DemiProphet. Glad to hear that you are enjoying the debate. If you want to find other debates on mises.org, or look at some more resources, then follow this link and explore: The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread
Everyone agreeing with everyone on a subject isn’t necessarily boring, sometimes it helps to hear responses without it becoming a debate.
The hard thing about this debate is that I find it hard to articulate the points that stosc is making. For the point on property that you are referencing, there is an apparent contradiction. He states that property is made by taking things out of a state of nature. However, that apparently contradicts with his statement that land cannot be property, because land can be used and changed.
I agree that this definition has holes in defining property, and needs to be explained further.
As for intellectual property, there have been big debates on this subject. For myself, I think that anything that is purely intellectual cannot be property. For example, a painting can be property, but an idea cannot (although ideas can certainly be revealed for a price). However, the absence of a copyright or patent does not doom these intellectual professions. But if this is what you want to discuss, I think it would be best on another thread.