Ebola is a good thing, because it eliminates the weak. if your immune system is so weak that your body is literally disintegrating than we obviously don't want your terrible genes out there. it is like natural selection, we only want the strongest people to make it to the future. if the weak are around tasks will be failed and all in all the human race could be put at risk because someone is incapable of doing a designated task. That is why Ebola is a good thing.
What you stated in your last arguments was that the definition of good is "Good: morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious" when in fact that is the definition of a good if it was being used as a noun when in fact i am using good as an adjective which is defined as "to be desired or approved of" which i in fact desire and approve of Ebola.
In fact, from my source, the first definition: "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious." You have not proven anything, and ebola is in fact not morally excellent. (source: http://dictionary.reference.com...)