But the same sentence can indeed be nonsense, and it is unclear what the previous arguments defending the possible nonexistence of black holes the OP referred to are. The OP does not direct us to discuss Hawking's new paper per se, but implicitly requires us to discuss it with respect to his previous discussions. Hawking's new paper is not required to conclude that black holes may not exist. Referring to Hawking's new paper is poor justification of previous claims for or against the existence of black holes.S. Hawking:"The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity."
If Hawking weren't one of the most authoritative voices on the subject of black holes since its modern conceptualization in the late sixties, this same sentence coming from almost anyone else would have been deemed as pure crackpottery and if affirmed around here the author most likely banned no matter how he had argumented it, as justified by a strict adherence to the guidelines. This simple observation is probably what spurred the apparent irritation in the OP.
I must say I very much concur with the nuanced explanations by Peter Donis, but it is also fair to say that most people in those threads discussing black holes made an "unequivocal defence of the existence of black holes" probably based on pop-sci accounts(or at the very least not so carefully nuanced as Peter's explanations here) of black holes that have been taking for granted their existence for many years.