When I was in the language-acquisition phase, I learned “refute” as meaning “disprove.” I know that the descriptivists have mostly given up on holding that line, but I haven’t. Disagreement is not refutation. Denial is not refutation. Even making a good, reasoned reply is not refutation. You can only “refute” if you win the argument. It’s disproof or nothing.
I think the trouble is that ‘refute’ has a legitimate subjective sense. If I think I won the argument, or more generally if I think my argument proves my point, then I can call it a ‘refutation’ of the original point. E.g., G.E. Moore’s paper “The Refutation of Idealism”. So Moore may believe he’s disproved idealism, even if he may not have objectively done so. Would you hold Moore’s use as a legitimate one?