Is the Sicilian Dragon close to refuted?

What compounded my difficulties playing the Dragon from a practical standpoint is that it's not that common to get a Dragon vs Yugoslav attack game. First you have to actually get an Open Sicilian on the board, and then they have to use the Yugoslav attack. There's not much opportunity to use and reinforce the memorized theory and this makes learning the labyrinth of variations much harder.  Yet, it's still vital that you learn it because when someone does use the Yugoslav attack Black must know exactly what they're doing. In my opinion the juice just wasn't worth the squeeze for an opening that really isn't gotten on the board that much. And if both players don't know the theory and just know the basic plans, then it's much easier for White. White can win games on autopilot in the Dragon. I had many games where it was obvious my White opponent didn't know hardly any theory and still won.

Sounds like you needed a dragon practice partner.

I don't mean to offend but I think you just lack(ed) skills/knowledge for such an opening. If your point is that it's a very tough opening with relatively few things in return then I can agree, but your personal examples could just have been avoided by having played better chess.
Pretty much every Sicilian requires an Open Sicilian to be on the board, or it's likely to be classified as an Anti-Sicilian of some sort.  

Worries about the dragon may explain the more recent popularity (from what I've seen) of the accelerated dragon--even as early as move 2...g6.

Fair enough, they got their perks (and downsides). But better focus on the perks if one wants to get started.

I definitely did lack the knowledge because I never actually learned much Yugoslav Attack theory. When I did start to look deep into the theory I saw some of the positions at the end of a lot of lines weren't to my taste or satisfaction. It just seemed like there should be more reward for such an immense effort of memorization.

Also I like having freedom in my chess. I don't like the idea of playing out 25 memorized moves. When I look at other peoples Dragon/Yugoslav attack games they often look just like games I've played in the past. It's like "didn't I play that same exact game?"

Yes of course every Sicilian is hard to get on the board because White often doesn't go into the Open Sicilian in the first place, but I think the Dragon/Yugoslav stuff is even more of an extreme example. Consider that there are entire books and DVDs just about the Yugoslav attack with 9.Bc4 or 9.0-0-0 and g4. These are entire books about a variation (White's ninth move) within a variation (The Yugoslav Attack) used against a variation (the Dragon) that Black uses against a variation (the Open Sicilian) that White may or may not meet 1...c5 with. It just seems like the most extreme example of memorizting a ton of theory for an opening you're not likely to actually get in all of chess.

I think Thrillerfan put it well when he wrote " If White knows what he's doing, Black is walking a tightrope to what is theoretically a forced draw.  It's one of the few openings that's basically been figured out to the end.  White has wiggle room to error and/or experiment without getting killed.  Black doesn't"

Even when I read that my knee jerk reaction was to post arguing with him. No one wants to give up on an opening. I didn't want to give up on the Dragon, and it will always have a place in my heart as the first opening I ever played, but there came a point where I had to be honest with myself and admit that it's not the greatest opening because of all that Yugoslav attack crap. And all the GMs being so pessimistic about it isn't very encouraging either. Like in the book Dismantling the Sicilian they give each Sicilian a star rating of 1 to 5 and the Dragon got a 3. Also take GM Simon Williams for instance, on his Killer Dragon DVDs he admits that he doesn't play the Dragon much in tournaments. I recall reading an Andrew Martin book on the Sicilian Dragon for Black where he basically says that the Dragon fans were all enthusiastic about 9.Bc4 in the Yugoslav but had grown very quiet about 9.0-0-0 because there were some lines within it poses major challenges to the Dragon.

Also even if you do want to put the effort in to learn the Yugoslav Attack theory, how do you decide which lines to learn. Every books says different things. Chris Ward's book says one thing, William's DVD says another, Nielsen says yet another line, etc. Just deciding on which of the lines you'd want to use against 9.0-0-0 9.g4 9.Bc4 is an immense chore in itself that would probably take someone at least a year to figure out.

I actually don't agree that the dragon should be "memorized". I think memorization any opening is a recipe for disaster. I think people need to look through the lines themselves and make their own judgements. There are outlets for creativity for those who seek to find it. Those who don't are not looking for anything, just what others tell them to see.

Cool story bro, needs more dragons. 

OMG. SmyslovFan. The Dragon is so NOT refuted, the Dragon is boss!

The Dragon: Volume One by Gawain Jones (2015)

"This book is highly recommended for all who play the Dragon or who are thinking of taking it up." - IM John Donaldson

http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Dragon-The-76p3898.htm