Another abrogation case that scholars could have made, but thankfully didn't, is that
was abrogated by or has abrogated
The argument for abrogation could have been that 42:37 does not exempt any sin from major sins and debauchery, while 53:32 does. I don't know why scholars overlooked this when they highlighted far less meritorious cases.
Such argument is bogus for a couple of reasons. First, both verses are declarative statements and therefore neither can be abrogated. Second, the "exception" in 53:32,
اللمم, is by all definitions and exegeses not a major sin nor a debauchery, thus the exception here is
stylish rather than in kind. That is, 53:32 means "Avoid major sins and debauchery. Minor sins may not be avoidable but God forgives them for those who ask Him for forgiveness."
The stylish exception is used a number of times in the Quran, e.g.,
In which God clearly directs an order to the angels then says that Iblees, who was of the sprites, not the angels, did not follow the order. Thus, this verse means "God ordered all heavenly creatures, even and starting with the angels, to prostrate to Adam. Iblees, a sprite, was the only one who disobeyed."
Another example is
Which clearly says that in Paradise people will not hear any frivolous or bad talk, "except" words of peace. Words of peace are neither frivolous nor bad. It's not an exception in kind, it's a stylish exception meaning "In Paradise, people will not hear frivolous or bad talk. They will only hear words of peace."