Can the dutch easily be refuted?

I am an attacking player and i wanted to learn a good opening against d4, the dutch and the leningrad dutch both  seemed nice but since they weaken your king side i wondered if they can easily be refuted

No the dutch cannot be refuted.

No. Although after 1. d4 f5 white has at least 7 or 8 good moves. So it will be a decent amount of work. I guess any opening is, though. 

@1
The Dutch is not really sound: does not develop a piece and weakens the king's side.
AlphaZero arrives at 21.8% white wins and 3.9% black wins, Figure 4. (a)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf

Refuting it is not easy. Normal development d4, Nf3, g3, Bg2, O-O, c4, Nc3 is enough.

@6
That paper is from 15 September 2020.
A normal white win rate is 7.72% per Figure 2. (a), so 21.8% is huge.
A normal black win rate is 4.09%, so 3.9% is poor.
The Dutch is unsound.

Then why do I always have to pick up the check?

IBM International Burn Master 

Stonewall is dumb sometimes, but neither is refuted, much less "easily."

@8
You are quite cocky for a 2214 rated IM.
I am no IM, but my FIDE rating was higher than yours now.

Uh, just a guess, but I think his peak rating was higher than your current rating too...

Thread summary

I think 1.d4 d5 is better to learn from... but with practically any opening, you learn some theory plus learn some common middlegame ideas from GM games, and you'll be very tough to beat for 99% of players... or at least... you wont be losing because of the opening

Nakamura used to play 1...f5 as a top 10 player at the time, so there's zero chance it's "refuted."

As a bonus tip... play over candidates matches / world chess championship matches from 50 or so years ago. You'll discover some opening choices you've never seen that are high quality. It's a good way to get ideas if you want to surprise your opponent and play a good opening with good ideas behind it at the same time.

@12
That is quite right. On the other hand I have beaten several 2400 IM too.
Having some title does not justify to call all non-titled patzers.

@14
Dutch has been played in Alekhine - Euwe and Bronstein - Botvinnik matches and that is it.
Nakamura and even Carlsen have occasionally played Dutch against lesser opponents, but not in serious competition.

@17
As a weak IM you should not call people patzer or troll.
Compared to a GM you are a patzer just the same and calling people names instead of presenting facts is trolling.

As opposed to you, a non-titled player with a rating that can't be verified.

It's not the soundest most solid choice at the highest level, but it is far from being refuted. Especially at lower levels.

However, 2.e4 staunton gambit and if you're not careful you'll be defending instead of attacking

If Stockfish becomes self aware I wonder if it will consider all humans to be patzers.

@21
"If Stockfish becomes self aware I wonder if it will consider all humans to be patzers."
++ Yes. "We are all clowns" - Kramnik

@20

"It's not the soundest most solid choice at the highest level, but it is far from being refuted."
1) 1...f5? is no developing move
2) It weakens the king's side
3) It has not been played in a top event since Bronstein - Botvinnik 1951, 71 years ago
4) AlphaZero gives 21.8% white, 3.9% black win, while 7.72% white, 4.09% black win is normal.

"Especially at lower levels." ++ At lower levels and in shorter time controls everything is playable. Dutch is still played on GM level, mostly as a surprise and against lesser opponents.

"However, 2.e4 staunton gambit" ++ 2 e4? is not sound either. Same reasoning: playable at lower levels, in short time controls and as a surprise and against lesser opponents.

@19
"As opposed to you, a non-titled player with a rating that can't be verified."
++ That is right, I have no title and you can only verify my online rating.
However I present arguments for my answer to the question.
The weak IM calls names instead of presenting an argument.