Amillennialism is the preferred teaching of religious liberals. All who teach it are not religious liberals, but it is the preferrred teaching of religious liberals. I have NEVER heard of a religious liberal who adopted the premill position. (That alone should say something.)
Likewise with the word, irrefutable. If it were refuted as you said, then it wouldn't still be here, would it? Irrefutable means incapable of being proven WRONG. With Rev 5, Rev 20, and 1 Co 15 on premill's side, it has not been and never will be PROVEN Wrong. It can only be proven right or wrong by the events themselves transpiring.
The fact that it cannot be PROVEN wrong does not make it RIGHT. But it does make it a legitimate contender for being the right answer.
The big problem with amillennialism is that it cannot point to any place in scripture that succinctly summarizes that viewpoint in the same manner as premillennialism can point to Rev 20. That alone elevates premill above amill.
However, while I think premill is definitely the better position, I do keep amill in mind. The biggest problem with amill is its need to SYMBOLIZE just about everything it encounters. THAT IS WHY liberals love it. If you can symbolize every difficulty as a method of interpretation, then liberalism will walk right THROUGH that door with a big grin on its face!
Careful there. I can't point to a single place in scripture that succinctly summarizes the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Nevertheless, it is a wholly Biblical and foundational doctrine. Additionally, many heresies (not that I'm labelling your eschatology as such) are born of people taking one "succinct" portion of Scripture and running with it.