Hi Naomi,
These seem useful, I guess... sometimes.
For example, an Appeal to Privacy could actually be none of your business. If you can demonstrate how you are negatively affected, then you've exposed "mind your own business" as an invalid argument. If you can't, then it's probably valid and the "fallacy" does not apply.
But that's just debating... I'm not sure that it's useful to try to pre-determine potential invalid arguments, give them a name, and then memorize them for identification in the wild. There are seemingly infinite possibilities.
And if you call someone on the "Appeal to Privacy" fallacy... then you're still just left with the task of proving that their appeal is, in fact, invalid; which is where you were already.

There are a small number of commonly-deployed "formal" fallacies that are known to be demonstrably inconclusive under the proven structures of propositional logic.
Those are useful to know. I would recommend "Intro to Propositional Logic" to everybody... and that also gives insight into recognizing these other instances where the train of thought has just gone off the rails.

I always liked the argument ender: "Oh yeah buddy, lets take it outside!"