I've made the definition as simple as it could possibly be. Technically speaking, yes, rot13 is a form of encryption; it's just a really bad one that has virtually no security features, only being a minuscule step above plain text. Rot13 even has a decryption key, but only ever one, which is the algorithm to decode it. (Of course it would not take long at all to reverse engineer) Besides, any encryption other than OTP can be broken in theory given enough time.

Honestly, I haven't the faintest clue the point you are making or why you are nitpicking to this degree. I think I made it clear why legal and judicial professionals should have a rudimentary understanding and awareness of encryption for the purpose of making sound decisions that affect society. If your disagreement with my definition of encryption gets in the way of that for you, then I really don't know what to say. Look up what the word "encrypt" means, think of the etymology, and rethink what you've been saying.

> Honestly, I haven't the faintest clue the point you are making or why you are nitpicking to this degree. I think I made it clear why legal and judicial professionals should have a rudimentary understanding and awareness of encryption for the purpose of making sound decisions that affect society.

You're asking for them to have a very strange understanding of encryption, that doesn't match how the term is normally used. The important part is the security, not that you need an algorithm to decode. It's not nitpicking to say you're asking for them to know something irrelevant that's adjacent to some important things they should understand.