Here's the real challenge: What deserves your five minutes in the first place? Many intellectually bankrupt ideas benefit from the notion that both sides of an argument should be considered. This is partially why we have dumb ideas like "intelligent design" floating around -- they get their oxygen from the mistaken notion that both sides should be considered, when in truth the issue is much more one-sided, or should be. Because ideas have power, there is an incentive to pitch such ideas and to persuade others with them, however hollow they may be on examination. There is value in talking about "clean coal", even though no such thing actually exists in the world.
You can't waste five minutes of your life every time someone says their ideas at you. So, what do you do? I suppose my approach is to try to develop a filter, to try to focus on things that are actually worth thinking about. But honing that filter is a challenge in itself, trying to keep oneself intellectually honest, trying not to indulge in parochialism. This is a tough subject, there are no easy answers.