A famous Aristotle quote that you may not have heard of: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
If you disagree, that is fine! No one is saying you must agree with everyone, just endorse the possibility they are presenting and think reasonably about the evidence they provide to support their claims. Who knows, they might be right.
Do you think Roman forums would have yielded the intellectual progress they where responsible for if people just ignored everyone they didn't agree with 100% of the time?
But there are many viewpoints, and to consider all of them would take an excessive amount of time.
As such, it seems there may be uses in narrowing down the ones to consider in some way.
One option I've considered would be to focus on the boundary of what viewpoints one considers to be plausible.
So, in each "direction", the viewpoint that, of all the ones which seem implausible, seems the least implausible, and also the viewpoint that, of all the ones which seem plausible, seems the least plausible.
Another idea might be, if one has already considered a viewpoint, and the viewpoint isn't changing, there might cease to be much use in considering it further (suppose, for example, that one can pass an ideological turing test of it with flying colors). Does it not seem implausible that it might not be worth spending more time on exposing oneself to that viewpoint?
After all, I doubt you believe that you have an obligation to consider the viewpoints of off brand viagra sellers whenever you receive spam in your inbox.
Take, for example, doctors washing their hands. Once, it was crazy take to mandate this. Literally, Semmelweis was driven crazy from proposing this and becoming ostracized. Read the NPR story "The Doctor Who Championed Hand-Washing And Briefly Saved Lives", it will give some insights into this.
If you limit things you expose yourself as what you see is "correct" then you will never come to learn something new.