Sentencing, 9/7/99, at 82-86. Consequently, appellant has not raised a substantial question. ¶ 18 Second, appellant claims that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because his sentence was excessive, which we have discussed above, and the trial judge made comments to the effect that appellant’s conduct was “ ‘a scourge to children.’ ” Brief for Appellant at 44 (quoting N.T. Sentencing, 9/7/99, at 91). Appellant cites no authority except a general cite to a cruel and unusual punishment case, then says, “one must come to the conclusion the sentence was either cruel and unusual or an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 51. Because appellant has failed to develop this argument, it is waived pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119. See Commonwealth v. Irby, 700 A.2d 463, 464 (Pa.Super.1997) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 19 Finally, appellant argues that trial
holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived holding that arguments not fully developed until a reply brief are waived holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived holding that arguments which are not sufficiently developed are waived holding arguments not appropriately developed in brief are waived