One thing that makes conversation difficult is that people sometimes use the word "refuted" to mean different things -- and may in particular mean different things when they call a Black opening refuted than from when they say the same of a White opening. I wouldn't call any of those three openings refuted if what we mean is that they lose by force.
Refuted doesnt mean lose by force. Only people who care about winning or losing care about that. In fact, I've lost many a 5 min game in superior evals. Even long games...but the deal is im not looking at one game. If you are looking to win one 2 min game, hardly anything is 'refuted'...but for me, if im learning thats a plus than winning a no effort required.
I think you’re proving my point, which is that people mean a range of different things by “refuted.” Standards differ from person to person and even from situation to situation (one often thinks refutations in different terms for black and white). That’s why it often becomes helpful to slow down and clarify what you mean by “refuted.”
The Portuguese line in the Scandinavian (1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Nf6 3 d4 Bg4) looks to be on very thin ice these days. In Smerdon's very good book on the 2...Nf6 Scandinavian he says that if there is a refutation to 3 d4 Bg4 then it must be 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4!. Stockfish appears to not like black's side at all in the Portuguese.
I forgot which GM said it, but during the candidates commentary he pointed out that many openings with something that looks bad (like +1.2) tend to go to a draw at very high depth / as you explore them more, simply for the reason that eventually everything either goes to mate or draw.
They were talking about Caruana's habit of purposefully giving himself "bad" positions that are eventually a draw with very good play.