University of Technology, Jamaica (UTech, Jamaica) law students Matthew Douglas and Joshua Atkins claimed victory in the Student Debate during the 15th Caribbean Urban Forum (CUF 2026), held from June 17-19 at The Jamaica Pegasus Hotel in Kingston. 

The duo walked away with top prizes, including a cash prize of $20,000 each, along with championship trophies and gold medals. Matthew Douglas also won the title of Best Debater of the tournament.

Second Place went to UWI’s Matthew White and Kimani Leslie, who were both awarded silver medals and $10,000 each, while UCC’s Karasi Rowe and Davion Phillips copped bronze medals in third place. Nathan Roper and Cloe Hanson of NCU were also bronze medalists, coming in at fourth.

The Caribbean Urban Forum was held for the first time in Jamaica and was jointly executed by UTech, Jamaica and the Kingston and St. Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) under the theme, “On the Front Lines: Rethinking Resilience and Recovery in the Caribbean.” It is the region’s premier event that convenes policymakers, academics, development partners, municipal managers and international stakeholders to advance plans for integrated, proactive and equity-driven approaches to urban development and disaster resilience.

Professor Carol Archer, Professor of Urban Planning at UTech, Jamaica, noted that organisers of the Forum wanted to create a space for young people to share their perspectives on issues relating to the built environment.  The debate centred on the moot, “Be it resolved that national development in the Caribbean cannot be achieved without urban planning systems that explicitly address gender inequality and the exclusion of marginalised groups.” The match was sponsored by the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) and chaired by Mr Jermaine Barrett, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Jamaican Association for Debating and Empowerment (JADE).  

Representing UTech, Jamaica as Closing Opposition, Matthew Douglas and Joshua Atkins advanced a cohesive and decisive argument against the proposition. Atkins argued that urban planning is not the most efficient or reliable pathway to national development. He instead noted that economic growth, innovation, and institutional reform are more decisive drivers of state capacity.

He also maintained that many of the outcomes that the proposition attributes to urban planning such as improved infrastructure, accessibility and welfare expansion, can alternatively be achieved through broader economic policy, targeted regulation, and psychosocial reform.  He contended that state resources are better allocated toward productivity-enhancing reforms that expand fiscal space for social investment.

 Leading the substantive rebuttal, Douglas challenged the assumptions of the proposition that urban planning addresses the root causes of exclusion, particularly for women, the poor, and persons with disabilities. He argued that gender inequality is primarily driven by “deep-seated sociocultural attitudes, including violence, wage discrimination, and underrepresentation in leadership.” 

He stated that none of these underlying issues can be meaningfully solved through spatial planning or infrastructure design. On poverty, he contended that large-scale planned developments often fail to benefit low-income groups due to cost barriers and market-driven exclusion, explaining that such interventions can reproduce inequality rather than resolve it. He further argued that disability inclusion does not require formal urban planning systems, as accessibility can be achieved through regulation and retrofitting of infrastructure.

Together, Douglas and Atkins concluded that while urban planning may contribute in limited ways, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve national development, and that stronger, more direct policy alternatives exist to address inequality and improve societal outcomes.