Can the dutch easily be refuted?

@40
"You say it is unsound because 1...f5 does not develop a piece.  Guess what?  
Neither does 1...d5, 1...e6, 1...g6, or 1...c6.  I guess 1...d5 must be unsound too?"
++ I say 1...f5 is unsound because it does not develop any piece and weakens the king's side.
1...d5 opens a diagonal for Bc8. 1...e6 opens a diagonal for Bf8,
1...g6 prepares to develop 2...Bg7, 1...c6 opens a diagonal for Qd8.
1...f5 does nothing of that kind. Well there is the thematic ...Qe8, ...Qh5 in the Dutch,
but that takes two moves and albeit aggressive is not that solid by itself.
The second part of the argument is the weakening of the king's side. 1...f5 generally commits to ...O-O, so Kg8 lands on the weakened diagonal a2-g8, vulnerable to tactics.

@38
"the most common approach is trying to win with white and hold with black."
++ You can say that about a match, but in tournaments including the Candidates' Tournament the common approach is trying to win against the weaker players, regardless of color.

@39
"is the dutch a somewhat good and consistent way or combatting against d4 and trying to reach the National Master title?"
++ Yes, the Dutch is a good and consistent way of combatting against d4 and trying to reach the National Master or even CM, FM, or IM title.
Below GM level the opening does not matter. The theoretical inferiority of the Dutch Defence is small compared to the tactical and strategic errors that inevitably occur below GM level.

There are several GM who regularly play the Dutch Defence in open tournaments etc.,
so as to try and win with black against weaker or unprepared opponents.
Carlsen has even played it a few times against strong opponents as a surprise.

However, at top level: World Championship matches, Candidates' Tournament, ICCF World Championship, the Dutch no longer shows up and for good reason.

@47
And when did  Slovenian ICCF Grandmaster Matjaž Pirš qualify for the ICCF World Championship final?

@49
And in which ICCF World Championship Finals did he compete?
https://iccf.com/tables 
I cannot find him.

I am aware of some people who have made master with the Dutch in their repertoire. So, I guess. But I haven’t played it as black myself OTB.

ah alright but with that awareness, would you say its possible for anyone in the 2000-2150 range to use the dutch and be able to achieve NM? or due to the risky play, it will be inconsistent?

@53
"its possible for anyone in the 2000-2150 range to use the dutch and be able to achieve NM?"
++ Yes. Below GM level the opening does not matter. The theoretical inferiority of the Dutch Defence is small compared to the tactical and strategic errors that inevitably occur below GM level.

@52
"memorize all the lines with the best engine moves."
++ Just memorising the ICCF games with it would be enough.

Probably, but there are too many variables for me to give you a straight answer. The Dutch isn’t just one opening. There’s the Leningrad, Stonewall, Classical, the various “Christmas Tree” hybrids or whatever they’re called etc. Plus idk if they’re going 1…f5 or 1…something else and later transposing. Most likely you can do it, I doubt it’s optimal, but I don’t think the opening is the biggest factor for things like this. 

alright, thanks i appreciate that answer

As a 2k+ player (online, 1600 FIDE) who somewhat painfully learnt the Dutch this year, I cannot reccommend it to you.

To answer your question, yes the Dutch defense is a good aggressive opening against d4, and no it isn't easily refuted. However, because of the weakened King, it is actually much easier to play aggressively for White than for Black, especially in the sidelines, especially at lower level where neither player is properly prepared.

So what would likely happen at your level if you started to play the Dutch tomorrow, is half the time your opponent will go for a London or something similarly solid and you may or may not manage to show that the Leningrad is actually a decent weapon against it. The other half, they will throw random shenanigans at you and you will suffer just to stay alive, and fail to do so more often than not.

A simpler approach for now would be to play things like the Budapest, or some early c5 moves, or a Benko, where you can easily wing it without too much theory.

Now if you still want to play the Dutch, do know that it is a big investement. You'll have to learn all 3 systems (Leningrad, Classical and Stonewall) as you don't always choose which one is playable, and then many many critical and challenging variations, sidelines and gambits. Most of White shenanigans revolve around a premature e4 push, a pesky Bg5, and a crude h4 h5 push, but there are many more creative ways to challenge black, 2h3 followed by 3.g4 or even 2.Qd3.

It comes with a big reward though as the Dutch as a whole can be played against any thing other than 1.e4 (and 1.g4 I guess). Also, the grandprix Attack, which shares similarity with the Classical Dutch, is a great weapon against passive but solid systems like the small center or the hedgehog.

If that's of any interest, here is the study I made when I learnt it. It still has holes, most notably the mainlines, but it's very praactical when it comes to low level online chess, where nobody plays the mainlines.

https://lichess.org/study/WepGCJaw

As an ex-Budapest player (I played it from ~1700 to ~2100 online) I have to disagree with you. You can't get by in the Budapest without knowing your theory. Pretty much every single line is critical for black.

1.d4 f5 2.g4 is fun.

I can put beginners in a world of pain from most openings. The relevant question here is "will other beginners actually play those lines? Will they have proper play?".

I did play the Budapest a lot when I started out, and don't remember facing  your lines once. In the Lichess database, excluding bullets and taking the lowest rating range (1600-1800, OP isn't even that high), 5.e4 followed by f4 happens less than 1.4% of the time, 5.e3 followed by f4 about once every 1000 games.

In the typical Budapest game between beginners, White either plays one of the obvious main lines and Black has a slightly worse but enjoyable position, semi open with pieces developped, or White declines the gambit and has a position that is slightly worse, but hard to prove so.

Compares that with the Dutch where the Hopton (2.Bg5) the Staunton Gambit (2.e4) and a properly played Raphael (2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5) already amount for 2.9%, 2.5% and 2.8% of the games respectively, and are just as annoying to play against.

At complete beginner level, no opening theory is needed beyond opening principles. Beyond some level, every single opening require some degree of preparation. My point is that I think the Dutch defense requires more of it and earlier than the average opening. The Budapest may not be the best recommendation, but it's definitely much easier to pick up than the Dutch, even though it is closer to be easily refuted. Benko I agree was just a bad suggestion.

I am an ex Budapest player myself, I played it from 1200 to 1700 online, and I guarranty you I did not need any theory beyond "pile up on e5" "smothered mate trick" and "if 3.d5 go Bc5". If I were to pick it back up, I would go for a Fajarowicj or a Graif variation and would definitely have to book up and work a lot, but OP is 1100, not 1700. or 2000.

Now I have only played 1.f5 once or twice as a beginner against d4, with poor results, so I am definitely not well informed and biased, but I still think the Dutch is not easy to pick up or improvise.

4xel man we are only 100 points apart in rapid where do you asume i am a beginner 1100 from??

You do make valid points. I guess it’s because we played it at different rating ranges. Still, I think that playing an opening hoping that your opponent doesn’t play the critical lines seems fundamentally wrong.

Anyways back to the Dutch. I personally enjoy it a lot. I think the leningrad (not much experience in the others) encourages more offbeat thinking than traditional openings (I would argue that the Budapest develops like a traditional opening). I never learned much of the sideline theory, but the nature of sidelines is that you simply need to play better chess.

Oh, I'm very sorry, I only saw your blitz rating. Yes you're definitely strong enough to learn the Dutch. Reconsidering after realising my blunder, it's probably an excellent weapon in your situation. Sometimes you will have to be very ressourceful to hold against aggressive sidelines, but as a good aggressive player, that should be within your ropes.

I used to play the Leningrad, and did get into trouble with it a lot. Since I've switched to the Stonewall I've done much better. The basic thing you need to know about the Stonewall, and that has been the key to understanding the opening for me, is that if White doesn't fianchetto the light-squared bishop, then Black does. And if Black is going to have a bishop on b2, then they don't want a pawn on d5 blocking it, so delay the d5 move until it's clear what White is doing with the light-squared bishop. So you either get a dynamic postion with your pawn on d6 supporting a possible e5 or c5 thrust and a bishop on b7 bearing down on the White king, or a solid one with the pawns on c6, d5, e6 and f5 holding everything together. Either way the position is comfortable, especially if White, as so often, overrates their chances.