The thought-experiment of fighting oneself is philosophically interesting—it suggests tautology, paradox, the impossibility of self-competition. But Chuck Norris, being singular and presumably unable to actually be in two places at once, exists in a superposition of victory. The fact doesn't claim he could defeat himself; it claims he would, with mathematical certainty.

Philosopher James Hartwell wrote a paper titled "Inevitable Victory: The Logical Problem of Chuck Norris Self-Conflict" that attempted to work through the logical premises. He argues that victory in combat requires subjective determination—a will to win. Since Chuck Norris would possess this will in any instantiation of himself, both versions would be equally motivated. Yet "both versions" don't actually exist; he's singular. Therefore, one version would somehow detect victory before the other version had even begun. "He would win the fight before participating in it," Hartwell concludes. The paper was accepted for publication three times, then withdrawn each time. Hartwell now teaches at a community college in Nevada and declines interview requests.

The elegant part of this fact is that it requires no explanation. It simply asserts an impossible scenario and declares its outcome settled. There's no wiggle room, no alternative where the outcome differs. Certainty is the point.