After the defeat of “Sí” in the 2016 Plebiscite for Peace in Colombia, a public discussion was generated about the reasons that led the majority of citizens not to endorse the Final Agreement between the FARC guerrillas and the State. One of the main arguments was that the “No” campaign had focused its communication strategy on mobilizing emotions such as fear and indignation, contrary to the Yes that rationally explained what was agreed in Havana, Cuba. However, this statement has not been corroborated, therefore the objective of this research is to analyze the speeches of the Yes campaign in the special Plebiscite for Peace within the framework of the dichotomy rationality and emotionality. In this sense, it is argued that the “Sí” campaign did not structure an exclusively rational narrative, the production of the speech generated values such as fear and uncertainty under the idea of reactivating the war against the insurgency, for this rhetorical elements such as “return to war ”,“ if the “No” wins, the process is over ”or“ there will be no renegotiation ”, however, the idea of hope was also mobilized by promoting values such as forgiveness and reconciliation through statement of "the victims are at the center of the Agreement." On the other hand, rational discourse is approached within the framework of the maximization argument of the "profitability of peace". To understand this context, a historical approximation of the endorsement process and the “Sí” campaign is carried out.